I'm using Identity 3 and I want to add some columns in AspNetUser table.
I've tried to do it using EF Core Code first and it's working well but I need to do it DB first.
I was wondering, if I will create the columns manually in database, then create the ApplicationUser class with corresponding properties, will it work?
Yup that should work, I've done it before.
However as time goes on I ended up having to add so many that it got messy.
So eventually I refactored those extra columns into their own related tables:
e.g: User_AdditionalDetails
This was a massive pain as I had live users and had to write scripts to migrate everyone's data etc.
This way you would only need to add a single FK for the related table with all this extra info.
It also neatens the code too, and gives the benefit of being able to load different sets of user properties only when they are needed.
If it's for an application scope property of the user like 'Region' which determines behaviour of core functionality of your app, then I'd say add it straight onto the main ApplicationUser class.
Related
I have run into the problem addressed here (cannot add view to the edmx) multiple times over the years. Following the directions normally works. This past week, none of the suggested fixes are working. I'm working a port of data that's a mix of Access and SQL Server. I had a couple problems in the past related to the project that were sorted out by all the suggestions in the other question.
Here's what I had: a view that pulled from data created as a batch from Access tables once a week. That's as icky as it sounds. This information consists of a name and a simple integer. From there, I have two other views dependent on it. (This is where my problem could be: view within view.)
Next, I created a view that pulls from live SQL data and produces the same results consisting of the same name and a count. Both static and live views show that the name is not null and the count is nullable.
However, the secondary views of the static data show not-null for the name. This is fine. It let's EDMX create an entry for it. But, even though I create a views by scripting the working views to a window (and then pointing the view at the live data view), that view has decided that the names are nullable. Then EDMX can't decide what to do with it.
I tried all the standard solutions, but even generating a new identity field as part of the view still produces all nullable columns. The thing that drove me over the edge is that I finally said, "let me look at the view in the designer." I did. It looked normal. I changed nothing, but I did hit a Ctrl-S to save it. I refreshed the view and suddenly SSMS shows that the not-null columns are all now nullable. I got this result on two databases: my local test and remoting to the client's computer. The only thing so far that I can think to explain this is that SQL Server itself changed some subtle rules on views that use views.
For now, I'm going to make stored procedures, but it would sure be nice to know why this has stopped working for me.
I'm trying to build an Inventory web application with .NET Core. In this app, I want to keep track of every create and update operation, so almost every model in my application has CreatedBy and ModifiedBy fields and each of those fields have a one-to-many relationship with the UserId field from the Users model.
So there are a lot of foreign keys in my models and lots of navigational properties in my Users model. It works but looks kind of messy especially in my Users model so it got me thinking maybe there is something wrong with my approach. I thought of some other ways but I am just learning the ropes so I can't really predict the possible downsides of those approaches, thus, I need help.
So what's the best way to deal with this kind of situation in a web application?
Should I keep defining foreign keys?
Should I store UserId as string in those columns?
Should I create another table which holds records for every create / update operation?
Is there a better way out there?
After some research I decided to go on with temporal tables solution from SQL Server directly. You have to add just a couple of codes to your dbcontext's onmodelcreating method to set it up and it looks like it's working very good for my needs.
I know that each time a user registers in my ASP.NET MVC application the ApplicationUser class is used to create the new record and put it in the database.
I was wondering if it's okay to add properties to that class for example I want the model to have a column in the database for DateOfBirth. Then use that class(model) directly in my application when I have to do some business logic things, database queries and similar stuff. Or is it more correct to create a new table in the database called let's say ApplicationAccounts, that saves the general info about the account. Each ApplicationAccount will be associated with a ApplicationUser(1 to 1 relation) and be somewhat of a buffer in the communication with the real accounts. Does that make sense?
I would go with the second option : create your own table, link them up in a one to one relationship using the UserID as a unique foreign key and then go from there.
One note here, it is perfectly normal for the model you need for the views to be different from the database model, this is because your db model can hold a lot of data that your view doesn't actually need. You might want to consider having separate models and use something like Automapper for a quick translation from one to another.
Ihave a DB First EF5 project that I am implementing SimpleMembership in. I have most of it working, but a question has come up.
The main User table created by Simple Membership has the UserName in it. I have a couple other places in the app where I need to query this table, specifically the userName. Simple Membership does not use the Data.EntityClient in the connection string, so i have it set to the SqlClient.
So because i don't have an entity model with the provider User table, I am not sure how to query it. Usually i would create an instance of the entity model and use LINQ on it, but when I try it I get a very long winded error about mixing code first with entity first. I have modified the 'initialSimpleMembershipAttribute' so it points to the separate connection string I made for the Membership tables.
One solution i thought of was to save the user, then copy the username to one of my custom tables, then i can query it through EF, but this seems like it would violate some kind database 'best practice' of duplicated data.
Another idea I had is to create a second edmx model for the tables that Membership created, but if SimpleMembership does not use the EntityClient, does that also mean it will not recognize a entity model?
You're way over complicating things.
If you have your own model, then you can just get rid of the model that the default template gives you, and use yours instead. It doesn't matter if it's Code first or database first or whatever. Just change the Initialize SimpleMembershipAttribute to remove the references to the default model they give you, and make sure you modify the InitializeDatabaseConnection call correctly.
WebSecurity.InitializeDatabaseConnection("YourConnection", "WhateverYouCallYourUserTable",
"WhateverYourUserIdIs", "WhateverYourUserNameColumnIs", autoCreateTables: true);
I have an existing nhibernate web application and I'm about to add a configuration table that will contain all system wide configuration options. This table will always contain one and only one row. Each column will contain one configuration property. I plan on having a domain object that will have a matching property for each column in the table. The users will be able to modify the values for each property in an admin screen. I plan on populating the table with one row during installation, setting initial values for each configuration option. My questions are as follows:
1) I only want the system to update the existing row, and want to block any deletes or inserts on the table. I can, of course, enforce this by not creating application tier functions that do deletes or updates, but I wondered if NHibernate had some built in mapping or configuration options to help. I'd prefer to not have to do this at the database level since we are writing a database agnostic application, and so far, have not had to write any database platform specific code or scripts.
2) Would the mapping be different for this class than my other "normal" classes?
Answer to 1) NHibernate does not have any "configuration" that will enable to block "inserts" and "deletes" only. You can do work arounds e.g. Write an your own PreDeleteEventListener and PreInsertEventListener and stop updates and inserts if the entity is your configuration entity.
However I would advise you do to enforce this configuration via the application i.e. the configuration repository should only expose an Update" function and no more.
Answer to 2) I am assuming that this table does not have a primary key (as it is the only row in the table). As far as Im aware, NHibernate cannot work with entities that do not have primary keys. You may have to add a primary key just to get it to work for NHibernate