We Keep Coding

Entity Framework foreign key references not mapping

Using EF6 and .NET 4.6.1. I know this somewhat is a duplicate (I've looked at this stack overflow post) but hear me out. My case is different and I have tried to get it to work using their solutions with mine but it didn't work. So no this isn't actually a duplicate. It's another issue altogether and I haven't found a post that really helps me on this topic.
I am trying to map relationships between 3 models; Employee, Position and Employment. I want a one-to-many between Employment and Position (employments map to one position) and a one-to-one between Employment and Employee.
public class Employment
{
public int EmploymentID { get; set;}
...
public Position Position { get; set; }
public Employee Employee { get; set; }
}
public class Position
{
public int PositionID { get; set;}
...
[InverseProperty("Position")]
public ICollection<Employment> Employments { get; set; }
}
public class Employee
{
public int EmployeeID { get; set;}
...
[InverseProperty("Employee")]
public Employment Employment { get; set; }
}
However, when I try to run this with DbContext automapping, it fails and says it can't find the relationships. I've tried multiple combinations of data annotations like setting inverseproperties and foreignkey("____ID") on some of them but haven't been able to get it to work.
I did also try adding virtual keywords in for some of the but that didn't do anything either.
I'd rather not use FluentAPI as I want to let the auto mapper do as much as possible with this. It's not complicated a problem enough to warrant manually mapping it with FluentAPI (At least in my opinion it isn't. Maybe I'm wrong).
What data annotations do I need? I've looked at this stack overflow post and various articles on entityframeworktutorial.net trying to apply their solutions to my case. But haven't gotten anything to work.
The failing line is here:
using (EmploymentContext ctx = new EmploymentContext())
{
Position pos = new Position()
{
PositionID=1,
Name="General Manager"
};
ctx.Positions.Add(pos); // Failing here
ctx.SaveChanges();
}
and the error message is:
'Unable to determine the principal end of an association between the types 'Ianmann.Hr.DataAccess.Employment.Employee and Ianmann.Hr.DataAccess.Employment.Employment. The principal end of this association must be explicitly configured using either the relationship fluent API or data annotations.'

I don't know why you insist on using data annotations. Everything you can do with data annotation can be done with the Fluent API, but the opposite is not true. Also, and especially with relationships, the data annotations are not intuitive and error prone.
In the concrete case the problem is with the one-to-one relationship (btw, the error message should contain that information). It's because EF cannot determine the principal and the dependent of the relationship when the ends of the relationship are both optional (as in your case) or both required. So one way to resolve it is to mark the principal by making the navigation property required:
public class Employment
{
public int EmploymentID { get; set; }
...
public Position Position { get; set; }
[Required] // <--
public Employee Employee { get; set; }
}
The InverseProperty is redundant (not needed) in this case.
The same can be achieved more intuitively with fluent API:
modelBuilder.Entity<Employment>()
.HasRequired(e => e.Employee)
.WithOptional(e => e.Employment);
But please note that while either way will resolve the issue in question, the resulting design will be the so called Shared Primary Key association, where EmploymentID is both PK and also FK to Employee. In case you want a separate FK property / column, then fluent API is a must as it cannot be done via data annotations:
modelBuilder.Entity<Employment>()
.HasRequired(e => e.Employee)
.WithOptional(e => e.Employment)
.Map(m => m.MapKey("EmployeeID"));

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.

Entity Framework, strange behaviour with required reference, lazy loading

This goes for both Entity Framework 4 (4.3.1) and 5.
I have a User class (to go with my Entity Framework MembershipProvider). I've removed some of the properties to simplify. The actual User is from the MVCBootstrap project, so it's not part of the same assembly as the other classes.
public class User {
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public Guid Id { get; set; }
[Required]
[StringLength(256)]
public String Username { get; set; }
}
And then I have this class:
public class NewsItem {
public Int32 Id { get; set; }
[Required]
[StringLength(100)]
public String Headline { get; set; }
[Required]
public virtual User Author { get; set; }
[Required]
public virtual User LastEditor { get; set; }
}
Then I create the database context (The DbSet for the user is in the MembershipDbContext):
public class MyContext : MVCBootstrap.EntityFramework.MembershipDbContext {
public MyContext(String connectString) : base(connectString) { }
public DbSet<NewsItem> NewsItems { get; set; }
}
Running this code will give me this exception when the database is being created:
Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint 'FK_dbo.WebShop_dbo.User_LastEditor_Id' on table 'WebShop' may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths. Specify ON DELETE NO ACTION or ON UPDATE NO ACTION, or modify other FOREIGN KEY constraints.
Could not create constraint. See previous errors.
So I change the database context:
public class MyContext : MVCBootstrap.EntityFramework.MembershipDbContext {
public MyContext(String connectString) : base(connectString) { }
public DbSet<NewsItem> NewsItems { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder) {
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Configurations.Add(new NewsItemConfiguration());
}
}
And this configuration:
public class NewsItemConfiguration : EntityTypeConfiguration<NewsItem> {
public NewsItemConfiguration() {
HasRequired(n => n.Author).WithOptional();
HasRequired(n => n.LastEditor).WithOptional();
}
}
Or is this wrong?
Anyway, when I run the code, the database get's created, and the database seems okay (looking at foreign key constraints etc.).
But, then I get the 10 latest NewsItems from the context, and start loading them into view models, part of this is accessing the Author property on the NewsItem. The controller doing this takes forever to load, and fails after a long, long time. When running in debug mode, I get an exception in this piece of code: this.AuthorId = newsItem.Author.Id;, then exception I get is this:
A relationship multiplicity constraint violation occurred: An EntityReference can have no more than one related object, but the query returned more than one related object. This is a non-recoverable error.
It's probably something simple and stupid I'm doing wrong, I'm sure I've get similar code running on several sites, so .. what is causing this? Are my models wrong, is it the database context, or?

This part
Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint 'FK_dbo.WebShop_dbo.User_LastEditor_Id' on table 'WebShop' may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths. Specify ON DELETE NO ACTION or ON UPDATE NO ACTION, or modify other FOREIGN KEY constraints. Could not create constraint. See previous errors.
is actually a SQL Server issue (and an issue of many other RDBMS's). It is a complex issue resolving multiple cascade paths, and SQL Server decides just to punt and not try. See
Foreign key constraint may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths?
You were trying to configure your model to delete the child Author and LastEditor objects when the NewsItem is deleted. SQL Server won't do that.
Come to think of it... is that what you want? It seems you would want to disassociate the Author and LastEditor from the NewsItem, not delete them from the database.
Your object model requires a 1:1 relationship between NewsItem and Author, and between NewsItem and LastEditor. I'm not sure what this refers to in the code
this.AuthorId = newsItem.Author.Id;
but it seems to me, you should be making the assignment the other way around, e.g.
newsItem.Author = myAuthorInstance;
or if you include foreign key properties in your model and if you have previously saved your author instance and have an Id:
newsItem.AuthorId = myAuthorInstance.Id;
If you share the generated DB schema (relevant parts) that would make it easier to diagnose the issue.

User can be an author of several news items. Also, user can be editor of several news items.
Hence, relationship have to be "one-to-many":
public class NewsItemConfiguration : EntityTypeConfiguration<NewsItem> {
public NewsItemConfiguration() {
HasRequired(n => n.Author).WithMany();
HasRequired(n => n.LastEditor).WithMany();
}
}

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

NHibernate, not saving when inverse is set to true

I have what seems to be a very simple question but I can't seem to figure it out. If I have a one to many relationship between [Member] and [Mail]
If I take off inverse it all works, it's just when I call instance.inverse that it doesnt save.
public class Mail : Entity
{
public virtual Member Receiver
{
get; set;
}
public virtual string Subject
{
get;
set;
}
public virtual string Body
{
get; set;
}
}
public class Member : Entity
{
public Member()
{
Mail = new List<Mail>();
}
[Cascade(Enums.CascadeOptions.All)]
public virtual IList<Mail> Mail
{
get; set;
}
}
Inverse is true on a one to many (through an automapping convention)
public class HasManyConvention : IHasManyConvention
{
public void Apply(FluentNHibernate.Conventions.Instances.IOneToManyCollectionInstance instance)
{
instance.Key.Column(instance.EntityType.Name + "ID");
instance.Inverse();
}}
I try to add a mail item to a member through:
mail.Receiver = receiver;
receiver.Mail.Add(mail);
_repository.SaveOrUpdate(mail);
FlushSessionAndEvict(mail);
Now what's weird is the mail item is saved to the database, there is a foreign key called 'MemberId' which SHOULD have the foreign key to the parent member table and a column called ReceiverFk which is according to my convention but shouldn't be there if there is already a foreign key relationship with MemberId. When I retrieve the user it doesn't have the mail item attached to it. If I take off inverse everything works, the foregin key is saved in MemberId.
I don't want to take off inverse though because it entails another update call to the database. What can I do?
Thanks

Inverse = true means "ignore this relationship because I'm saving it from the other side". So you need to cascade the save on the collection side as you are attempting to do. I suspect that the problem is that you're using Fluent NHibernate for the mapping, but the cascade is annotated via NHibernate mapping attributes. Fluent NHibernate doesn't read the attributes as far as I know. So you need some code to mix NHibernate mapping attributes into the Configuration along with Fluent NHibernate or use an explicit ClassMap or Fluent NHibernate convention to override the cascade relationship on the Member.Mail collection.

Try adding Cascade.All to your mapping, it normally solves most of my NHibernate problems =)