I have the inheritance described below :
public abstract class BaseEntity<TId> {....}
public abstract class ModelEntity : BaseEntity<Int32>{....}
public abstract class AuditableEntity : ModelEntity,IAuditable{....}
public class ApplicationUser : AuditableEntity{....}
public class SuperUser : ApplicationUser
I am using NHibernate 3.3 and I want to Create the mappings for that inheritance
public abstract class ModelEntityMap<TEntity> : ClassMapping<TEntity>
where TEntity : ModelEntity
{...}
public class AuditableEntityMap<TEntity> : ModelEntityMap<TEntity> where TEntity : AuditableEntity
{ ...}
public class ApplicationUserMap : AuditableEntityMap<ApplicationUser>
{...}
public class SuperUserMap : JoinedSubclassMapping<SuperUser>{...}
When the application starts and trys to set up the database it raises the following Exception :
Ambiguous mapping for SuperUser More than one root entities was found BaseEntity / ApplicationUser
Possible solutions
-Merge the mapping of root Entity in the one is representing the real root in the hierarchy
-Inject a IModelInspector with a logic to discover the real root-entity.
I was using Fluent nhibernate with the same inheritance and worked fine with SuperUserMap defined as
public class SuperUserMap : SubClassMap {...}
I am new to Nhibernate mapping by code and quite confused !!!
I believe there are two ways to solve this problem:
a) Using the concept of discriminator that identifies the type of the class stored and thereby the right object is retrieved from the database, in this case your class is mapped to a table that has all the columns plus the discriminator columns. Not sure how this works with multi-level inheritance but this is something that you can google.
b) take a look at this post on how he deals with inheritance: http://fabiomaulo.blogspot.co.nz/2011/04/nhibernate-32-mapping-by-code_13.html you might get some idea to solve your issue.
You can influence the decision whether an entity is a root entity by overriding the IsRootEntity logic of the model mapper that you use to create mappings.
Here's an example that defines the default NHibernate mapping-by-code behaviour:
var modelMapper = new ConventionModelMapper();
modelMapper.IsRootEntity((type, declared) =>
{
if (declared) return true; // Type has already been declared as root entity
return type.IsClass
&& typeof(object) == type.BaseType
&& modelMapper.ModelInspector.IsEntity(type);
});
You will have to tweak this decision logic to exclude the BaseEntity class as possible root entity.
I had this error with NHibernate 4.1.1 (May 2017), so I'm answering with how I solved it for future reference
In my case, I copied an existing mapping of an inheriting class, and forgot to change the parent mapping class to ClassMapping and encountered the same error
In other words, in your mapping class, check the parent class, make sure it is ClassMapping or JoinedSubclassMapping if it's a child class
Related
I created a generic user repository base class that provides reusable user management functionality.
public class UserRepository<TUser> where TUser : new, IUser
{
}
I have a concrete implementation of IUser called UserImpl, and corresponding mapping class UserImplMap : ClassMap<UserImpl> (they all are in the same namespace and assembly). I add the mapping using AddFromAssemblyOf . I also use this to create / generate the schema.
So far so good and things work as expected.
Now, in a different project, I needed a few additional properties in my IUser implementation class, so I implemented a new class UserImplEx : UserImpl. This class has the additional properties that I needed. Also, I created a new mapping class UserImplExMap : SubclassMap<UserImplEx>
Now when I create schema using this approach, I get two tables one for UserImpl and one for UserImplEx.
Is is possible to configure / code Fluent mapping in some way so that all the properties (self, plus inherited) of UserImplEx get mapped in a single table UserImplEx instead of getting split into two tables?
Alternatively, if I provide full mapping in UserImplExMap : ClassMap<UserImplEx>, then I do get the schema as desired, but I also get an additional table for UserImpl (because corresponding mapping is present in the UserRepository assembly). If I follow this approach, is there a way to tell AddFromAssemblyOf to exclude specific mapping classes?
Option 1
since you have inhertance here and want the correct type back NH has to store the type somewhere, either through the table the data is in or a discriminator.
If a discriminator column in the table does not matter then add DiscriminatorColumn("userType", "user"); in UserImplMap and DiscriminatorValue("userEx") in UserImplExMap
Option 2
class MyTypeSource : ITypeSource
{
private ITypeSource _inner = new AssemblyTypeSource(typeof(UserImplMap).Assembly);
public IEnumerable<Type> GetTypes()
{
return _inner.Where(t => t != typeof(UserImplMap)).Concat(new [] { typeof(UserImplExMap) });
}
public void LogSource(IDiagnosticLogger logger)
{
_inner.LogSource(logger);
}
public string GetIdentifier()
{
return _inner.GetIdentifier();
}
}
and when configuring
.Mappings(m =>
{
var model = new PersistenceModel();
PersistenceModel.AddMappingsFromSource(new MyTypeSource());
m.UsePersistenceModel(model);
})
I´m using Fluent Nhibernate with automapping and having problem setting up a bi-directional HasMany relationship because of my current inheritance.
I simplified version of my code looks like this
public abstract class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass Parent { get; set; }
}
public class ClassA : BaseClass
{
public IList<ClassB> BChilds { get; protected set; }
public IList<ClassC> CChilds { get; protected set; }
}
public class ClassB : BaseClass
{
public IList<ClassD> DChilds { get; protected set; }
}
public class ClassC : BaseClass
{
}
public class ClassD : BaseClass
{
}
Every class can have one parent and some parents can have childs of two types. I´m using table-per-type inheritance which result in the tables
"BaseClass"
"ClassA"
"ClassB"
"ClassC"
"ClassD"
To get a working bi-directional mapping I have made the following overrides
(one example from ClassA)
mapping.HasMany<BaseType>(x => x.BChilds).KeyColumn("Parent_Id");
mapping.HasMany<BaseType>(x => x.CChilds).KeyColumn("Parent_Id");
This works fine on classes with only one type of children, but ClassA with two child types will get all subtypes of BaseType in each list which ofcourse will end up in an exception. I have looked at two different workarounds tho none of them feels really sufficient and I really believe there is a better way to solve it.
Workaround 1: Point to the concrete subtype in the HasMany mapping. (Updated with more info)
mapping.HasMany<ClassB>(x => x.BChilds).KeyColumns("Parent_Id");
(BaseType replaced with ClassB)
With this mapping NHibernate will in some cases look in the ClassB table for a column named Parent_Id, obviously there is no such column as it belongs to the BaseClass table. The problem only occurs if you add a statement based on BChilds during a ClassA select. e.g loading an entity of ClassA then calling ClassA.BChilds seems to work, but doing a query (using NhibernateLinq) something like
Query<ClassA>().Where(c => c.BChilds.Count == 0)
the wrong table will be used. Therefore I have to manually create a new column in this table with the same name and copy all the values. It works but it´s risky and not flexible at all.
Workaround 2: Add a column to the BaseClass that tells the concrete type and add a where statement to the HasMany mapping.
(after my update to workaround1 I´m no longer sure if this could be a workable solution)
By adding a column they same way as it´s done when using table-per-hierarchy inheritance with a discriminatorValue. i.e BaseType table will get a new column with a value of ClassA, ClassB... Tho given how well NHibernate handles the inheritance overall and by reading the NHibernate manual I believe that the discriminator shouldn´t be needed in a table-per-type scenario, seems like Nhibernate already doing the hardpart and should be able to take care of this in a clean way to without adding a new column, just can´t figure out how.
What's your base class mapping and what does your subclass map look like?
You should be able to do
mapping.HasMany(x => x.BChilds);
And with the correct mapping, you shouldn't have a problem.
If it's fluent nhibernate, look into
UseUnionSubclassForInheritanceMapping();
I'm trying to automap a simple inheritance hierarchy with Fluent Nhibernate, and I need to have a slightly different name for each table than its class (underscores instead of Pascal case). This seems like an obvious place to use conventions. I also want to use the table-per-subclass strategy, but the combination seems to be causing me an issue: the convention is only applied to the base class of the hierarchy.
Here's my automapping:
AutoMap
.AssemblyOf<BaseRule>()
.IncludeBase<BaseRule>() // "BaseRule" is an abstract class
.Conventions.Add( DefaultCascade.All() )
.Conventions.Add<OracleTableNameConvention>()
How I want my classes mapped (class name -> table name):
abstract class BaseRule -> Base_Rule
class NumberRule : BaseRule -> Number_Rule
class PatternStringRule : BaseRule -> Pattern_String_Rule
What I'm actually getting:
BaseRule -> Base_Rule
NumberRule -> NumberRule
PatternStringRule -> PatternStringRule
As you can see, only the base class is actually being changed. Here's my existing convention, just so you can see how I'm defining it:
public class OracleTableNameConvention : IClassConvention
{
public void Apply(IClassInstance instance)
{
string fixedName = instance.EntityType.Name.ToUnderscoredNaming();
instance.Table(fixedName);
}
}
I've also looked into the ISubclassConvention interface, and can see no way in there to adjust the name of the table (which makes enough sense, subclasses aren't always in their own table).
If I delete the IncludeBase line from my automapping, the names become what I want, except it becomes table-per-concrete-class. I want to use table-per-subclass, leaving all the common data in one shared base table.
I can add overrides for each name, and I will if I have to, but I'd rather not.
It seems like this should be an obviously supported behavior. How can I have the naming convention apply to each table in the hierarchy, without going to table-per-concrete-class?
As soon as I posted this question, I figured it out.
IJoinedSubclassConvention is the interface I needed to implement.
public class OracleSubClassConvention : IJoinedSubclassConvention
{
public void Apply(IJoinedSubclassInstance instance)
{
string fixedName = instance.EntityType.Name.ToUnderscoredNaming();
instance.Table(fixedName);
}
}
I found it by looking for anything that had a method Table(string).
This is my first time trying Fluent NHibernate and Auto mapping. Unfortunately I have run into an issue that I cannot get past. I'm getting an error saying that a method on one of my classes cannot be mapped.
public class Person
{
public IEnumerable<string> GetStuff(){return stuff;}
}
The Exception Message is:
The entity '<GetStuff>d__0' doesn't have an Id mapped.
I even tried adding an IAutoMappingOverride to ignore the method (using map.IgnoreProperty).
Is it really trying to map a method? whats going on here?
Every entity that you want to Automap must have an Id property, or inherit from a class that has an Id property. Your Person class does neither.
Also, in my experience, all public methods in entities must be declared virtual (though this may not be required if you eager load everything).
I got around this by manually marking each Entity with an interface.
public class MyAutomappingConfiguration : DefaultAutomappingConfiguration
{
public override bool ShouldMap(Type type)
{
return type.GetInterfaces().Contains(typeof (IEntity));
}
}
I am retrofitting a very large application to use NHibernate as it's data access strategy. Everything is going well with AutoMapping. Luckily when the domain layer was built, we used a code generator. The main issue that I am running into now is that every collection is hidden behind a custom class that derives from List<>. For example
public class League
{
public OwnerList owners {get;set;}
}
public class OwnerList : AppList<Owner> { }
public class AppList<T> : List<T> { }
What kind of Convention do I have to write to get this done?
I don't think you're going to be able to achieve this with a convention. You will have to create an auto mapping override and then do the following:
mapping.HasMany(l => a.owners).CollectionType<OwnerList>();