I'm not sure how to exactly word my question which is probably why I cannot find an example of this anywhere. I'm playing around with MVC4 & EF5 (Web API too) but I'm not sure how to proceed with the Model as I've never really had to do much with them before. I'm doing something around the Periodic Tablet of Elements and I want to make it so that I have a list built for an element with it's electron configuration. However, I'd like to have it just auto number based on the input order. How can I tell EF to auto-increment a field? Basically like a primary key field without that limitation behind it. Here's what I have so far - I'm just not sure how to proceed:
public class Elements
{
public int ElementID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int AtomicNumber { get; set; }
public string Symbol { get; set; }
public virtual Categories Category { get; set; }
public virtual States State { get; set; }
public virtual Occurences Occurence { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Configurations> Configuration { get; set; }
}
public class Categories
{
public int CategoryID { get; set; }
public string CategoryName { get; set; }
}
public class States
{
public int StateID { get; set; }
public string StateName { get; set; }
}
public class Occurences
{
public int OccurenceID { get; set; }
public string OccurenceName { get; set; }
}
public class Configurations
{
public int ConfigurationID { get; set; }
public int Order { get; set; }
public int Value { get; set; }
}
Looking above what I'd like is for anytime a value is added to Configurations.Order the value starts at 1 and increases with each new 'row' but only for that specific ElementID.
Does that make sense? I was looking at using Data Annotations but I couldn't find anything that matched other than a Key Field but that'd make each Order a unique number - which I don't want. I feel like I'm not expressing this correctly because of all the stuff I've been looking at to figure it out, so here's a picture! yay!
This very well could be something that is better off from a programmatic standpoint. Even though this data changes once in a blue moon, I wanted to try and do it through EF if possible just so I know how.
Thanks a ton in advance. Also, if you see any other glaring errors, by all means let me know :) I rarely get to work with this side of web dev so I'm sure there's ways to do things better.
How can I tell EF to auto-increment a field?
You can't. Not even for a simple auto-incrementing primary key. Let alone for a field that should increment in relation to other values.
The HasDatabaseGeneratedOption mapping method is not a way to tell EF how to generate key values. It tells EF if and how the database generates values for properties, so EF knows how to respond to that.
So you either have to generate the order numbers in code, or let the database do it (by a trigger, or by mapping CUD actions on Configurations to stored procedures) and tell EF that the database computes the values by HasDatabaseGeneratedOption(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Computed) in the configuration of the Order property.
Related
I am trying to develop an enterprise-level application. I have domain and application services. I have created my DTOs for multiple purposes separately. But confused about which way I should use them from the API viewpoint.
I have complex objects lets say,
public class Entity{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int? ManufacturerId { get; set; }
public virtual Manufacturer Manufacturer { get; set; }
}
public class Manufacturer{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
}
And I have corresponding DTOs designed with composition now. It was separated before.
public class EntityBaseDto{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class EntityReadDto : EntityBaseDto{
public string Manufacturer { get; set; }
}
public class EntityWriteDto : EntityBaseDto{
public int? ManufacturerId { get; set; }
}
Now the question is,
I have a table which is filled with List<EntityReadDto> which is clear. Before, EntityReadDto also had the ManufacturerDto as fully included with id and text. Whenever I require to edit one of the entries from the table I was able to load the dropdown selected items or list of tags etc with the ids attached to the Manufacturer objects within ReadDtos. Now it is not possible. Since I wanted to simplify the codes I just converted them to strings that are read-only. Now I have created another endpoint to get an editable version of the record when needed. Ex: EntityWriteDto will be used to fill the form when the edit is clicked on a specific item. The manipulation will be carried on that DTO and sent with the PUT type request to edit the record.
I am not sure if this approach is ok for these cases. What is the best practice for this? I have many objects related to the entities from other tables. Is it ok to make a call to get an editable version from the backend or need to have it right away in a VUEjs app?
First up, this was working in EF6 however I can't seem to get it working in OData EF Core. In EF6 I was using VisualStudio's .edmx designer
I have a single Table called FacilityStructure which represents a hierarchy of
Facility
Building
Floor
Zone
Site
ie, a Facility can have 0 or more Buildings, a Building can have 0 or more Floors etc ..
The SQL Table is basically
Id PK INT NOT NULL
StructureType INT NOT NULL (0 = Facility, 1 = Building etc)
ParentId INT NULL
Name NVARCHAR(255) NOT NULL
The table is self referencing through ParentId and works fine - I also have a SQL View which basically self joins for each StructureType to give the Parent, Grand Parent, Great Grand Parent etc such that a bottom level Site record through this view shows its Zone, Floor, Building and Facility resulting in the following POCO
public partial class FacilityStructure
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int StructureType { get; set; }
public Nullable<int> ParentId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public Nullable<int> FSFacilityId { get; set; }
public Nullable<int> FSBuildingId { get; set; }
public Nullable<int> FSFloorId { get; set; }
public Nullable<int> FSZoneId { get; set; }
public Nullable<int> FSSiteId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey(nameof(FSFacilityId))]
public virtual FacilityStructure FSFacility { get; set; }
[ForeignKey(nameof(FSBuildingId))]
public virtual FacilityStructure FSBuilding { get; set; }
[ForeignKey(nameof(FSFloorId))]
public virtual FacilityStructure FSFloor { get; set; }
[ForeignKey(nameof(FSZoneId))]
public virtual FacilityStructure FSZone { get; set; }
[ForeignKey(nameof(FSSiteId))]
public virtual FacilityStructure FSSite { get; set; }
}
I have attributed the Navigation properties (FSFacility, FSBuilding etc) with their ForeignKey columns.
Since I am using OData EF Core and it has its own ODataModelBuilder which simply
builder.EntityType<FacilityStructure>().HasKey(e => e.Id);
and the ModelBuilder in OnModelCreating of the DbContext does similar with mapping to the correct View
builder.Entity<FacilityStructure>(entity =>
{
entity.HasKey(e => e.Id);
entity.ToTable("FacilityStructure", "odata");
});
but when I query the OData controller which simply
[EnableQuery]
public IQueryable<FacilityStructure> GetFacilityStructures()
{
return db.FacilityStructures;
}
I get the following runtime error ..
The query specified in the URI is not valid.
Unable to determine the relationship represented by navigation
property 'FacilityStructure.FSFacility' of type 'FacilityStructure'.
Either manually configure the relationship, or ignore this property
using the '[NotMapped]' attribute or by using
'EntityTypeBuilder.Ignore' in 'OnModelCreating'."
So its complaining about not being able to work out the relationship for FSFacility and I should manually configure it, which I think I am doing via the [ForeignKey()] attribute. The weird thing is if I comment out 3 of the relationships (FSFloor, FSZone, FSSite) then it works, I get data and I can $expand on FSFacility,FSBuilding which work. As soon as I add a 3rd relationship then the error returns.
This seems like a bug to me in EF Core since I am explicitly defining the 0:1 relationship and it works if 2 are defined but not for 3 or more.
I realise now that I should have perhaps split the single self referencing table into tables for each StructureType but this decision was actually made years ago and I am now porting the .NET Framework monolithic Webapp to .NET Core and Microservice architecture but require the monolithic Webapp to continue to work
Any help much appreciated
I have a constructed a model using code first in C#. The model literally represents a container element for a website building application, in other words, the model defines a Div tag or some such HTML element. Like a Div tag which can contain multiple child elements, I have tried to represent this in my model, but the scaffolding to the DB, does not give me what I'd expect.
I should get a new many to many joins table, but instead I only get a single column in the DB which expects a single int data type.
Here is the model:
public class ElementContainer
{
public int ElementContainerID { get; set; }
public int PageId { get; set; }
public int? ParentElementContainerID { get; set; }
public string ElementContainerName { get; set; }
public ElementType ElementType { get; set; }
public string ElementClass { get; set; }
public PageAsset PageAsset { get; set; } // content of container
public List<ElementContainer> NestedContainers { get; set; }
}
The last line is the self-referential attribute which just appears as a column called ElementContainer_ElementContainerID
Thanks in advance!
I agree with Bahman, DB first is easier.
While I haven't tried to do what you are trying, your code looks like a self-Join that would do exactly what you describe.
This is a One-to-Many relationship. EF Navigation will pull a List of all nested children containers.
If you want to create a many-to-many relationship with EF Code-First, you should create another Entity
public class ContainerChildren
{
public int ElementContainerID { get; set; }
public List<ElementContainer> NestedContainers { get; set; }
}
this reference should help you to get the exact idea http://blogs.msdn.com/b/wriju/archive/2011/05/14/code-first-ef-4-1-building-many-to-many-relationship.aspx
I have a datamodel like
ModelA which contains a Collection.
ModelB contains a Collection as a backreference. That is failing because of cyclic references if I query with Include("ModelB"). Not good but I solved that via setting ModelB.List=null for each element.
The problem now is submitting a changed ModelA tree: I am adding ModelB-entities to ModelA.ModelB[]. Now the UpdateEntity function is complaining the it could not add elements of type ModelB which are declared static. The JSON deserializer is creating static arrays.
How is it possible with the combination of upshot/MVC4 to submit datamodels which are not completely flat? As it is not possible right now to create your own DTO objects where you might figure out something I am stuck now...
After investigating the error a bit better, I think the problem is the cyclic backreference:
The ModelA->ModelB->ModelA is breaking the storage of the data. "Could not add data of type ModelA to type ModelB".
As I mentioned the backreference was set to Null because the cyclic ref serialisation problem...
I hope the will be some easier way on doing more manually with DTO objects where I have mroe control.
Please see also: MVC 4, Upshot entities cyclic references for the beginning of the journey...
To solve the cyclic backreference, you can use the ignoreDataMember attribute:
public class Customer
{
[Key]
public int CustomerId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Address { get; set; }
public double Latitude { get; set; }
public double Longitude { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Delivery> Deliveries { get; set; }
}
public class Delivery
{
[Key]
public int DeliveryId { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public bool IsDelivered { get; set; }
[IgnoreDataMember]
public virtual Customer Customer { get; set; }
public virtual int CustomerId { get; set; }
}
I posted a working solution to your problem in a different question: https://stackoverflow.com/a/10010695/1226140
I'm having some trouble figuring out the appropriate FluentNHibernate mapping syntax for the following data model and domain objects. Here's the data model I'm working against:
And I'm trying to map the following domain objects to that model:
namespace FluentNHibernateSandbox.Entities
{
public abstract class EntityBase
{
public virtual long Id { get; set; }
}
}
namespace FluentNHibernateSandbox.Entities
{
public class Attribute : EntityBase
{
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual string Label { get; set; }
public virtual string Description { get; set; }
public virtual int SortOrder { get; set; }
public virtual Group Group { get; set; }
public virtual Editor Editor { get; set; }
}
}
namespace FluentNHibernateSandbox.Entities
{
public class Group : EntityBase
{
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual string Label { get; set; }
public virtual string Description { get; set; }
public virtual int SortOrder { get; set; }
public virtual IList<Attribute> Attributes { get; set; }
}
}
namespace FluentNHibernateSandbox.Entities
{
public class Editor : EntityBase
{
public virtual string ViewName { get; set; }
public virtual string WorkerClassName { get; set; }
}
}
In general, what I ultimately want doesn't seem like it should be all that hard to do, but I after having tried just about every combination of mappings I can think of, I still can't seem to get it right. I just need my Attribute to have a reference to the Group that it belongs to and a reference to the Editor assigned to it, and each Group should have a collection of the Attributes that are part of it. The couple of many-to-many join tables are what seem to be giving me fits. Particularly the APPLICATION_ATTRIBUTE table. Ultimately I only want the Attributes that my application is concerned with, in this case, those with an APPLICATION_ID of 4.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Really kinda surprised nobody responded to this at all, but anyway. The answer/solution for this mapping situation that we came up with, which I was trying to avoid to start with, but turned out to really be the best way to go, was to create some custom views in the database that joined together all of the application-specific data I needed, and then just mapped my application's domain objects to those views. This worked at least partially because the information I needed from these tables is going to be read-only for this application, but even if I needed to write to the tables, I'm pretty sure (though haven't verified as I didn't really have need in this case) that I could have setup my views to be writeable and that would've worked too.
Hat tip to #robconery.