Fluent NHibernate: Foreign Key violation or Null values - fluent-nhibernate

Hey guys, I am having some real issues with mapping using fluent nhibernate. I realise there are MANY posts both on this site and many others focusing on specific types of mapping but as of yet, I have not found a solution that solves my issue.
Here is what I have:
namespace MyProject.Models.Entites
{
public class Project
{
public virtual Guid Id {get; set;}
// A load of other properties
public virtual ProjectCatagory Catagory{get;set;}
}
}
and then the map:
namespace MyProject.DataAccess.ClassMappings
{
public class ProjectMap : ClassMap<Project>
{
public ProjectMap()
{
Id(x => x.Id);
Map(x => x.Title);
Map(x => x.Description);
Map(x => x.LastUpdated);
Map(x => x.ImageData).CustomSqlType("image");
HasOne(x => x.Catagory);
}
}
}
So as you can see, I have a project which contains a catagory property. Im not so hot on relational databases but from what I can figure, this is a many-one relationship where many Projects can have one catagory. No, projects cannot fall into more than one category.
So now we have:
namespace MyProject.Models.Entities
{
public class ProjectCatagory
{
public virtual Guid Id { get; set; }
public virtual String Name { get; set; }
}
}
and its map:
public ProjectCatagoryMap()
{
Id(x => x.Id);
Map(x => x.Name);
}
Issue is, well, it doesn't work ! I will do something similar to the following in a unit test:
Project myproject = new Project("Project Description");
// set the other properties
myProject.Catagory = new ProjectCatagory(Guid.New(), "Test Catagory");
repository.Save(myProject);
Now I have tried a number of mapping and database configurations when trying to get this to work. Currently, the Project database table has a column, "Catagory_id" (which i didnt put there, i assume NH added it as a result of the mapping) and I would LIKE it set to not allow nulls. However, when set as such, I get exceptions explaining that I cannot insert null values into the table (even though during a debug, i have checked all the properties on the Project object and they are NOT null).
Alternatively, I can allow the table to accept nulls into that column and it will simply save the Project object and totally disregard the Category property when saving, therefore, when being retrieved, tests to check if the right category has been associated with the project fails.
If i remember correctly, at one point I had the ProjectMap use:
References(x => x.Catagory).Column("Catagory_id").Cascade.All().Not.Nullable();
this changed the exception from "Cannot insert null values" to a foreign key violation.
I suspect the root of all this hassle comes from my lack of understanding of relational database set up as I have other entities in this project that do not have external dependencies which work absolutely fine with NHibernate, ruling out any coding issues I may of caused when creating the repository.
Any help greatly appreciated. Thank you.

The main issue here is a common misunderstand about the "one-to-one" relation in a relational database and the HasOne mapping in Fluent. The terms in the mapping are relational terms. (Fluent tries to "beautify" them a bit which makes it worse IMO. HasOne actually means: one-to-one.)
Take a look at the Fluent wiki:
HasOne is usually reserved for a
special case. Generally, you'd use a
References relationship in most
situations (see: I think you mean a
many-to-one).
The solution is very simple, just exchange HasOne with References (one-to-one to many-to-one in an XML mapping file). You get a foreign key in the database which references the ProjectCatagory.
A real one-to-one relation in a relational database is ideally mapped by a primary key synchronization. When two objects share the same primary key, then you don't waste space for additional foreign keys and it is ensured to be one-to-one.
To synchronize primary key, you need to hook up one's key to the others. However this works, it is not what you need here.

After playing around with all the available options for mapping. I found the answer to be similar to that suggested.
As was suspected, HasOne() was clearly wrong and References(x => x.Catagory) was part of the solution. However, I still received foreign key violation exceptions until:
References(x => x.Catagory).Column("Catagory_id").Cascade.SaveUpdate().Not.Nullable().Not.LazyLoad();
Just thought id update the thread in case someone else stumbles across this with a similar issue as just using References() did not work.

Its seems ProjectCatagory class is parent class of Project Class. So without parent class how can child class exist.
You have to use -
References(x => x.Catagory).Column("Catagory_id").Foreignkey("Id");
here Foreign Key is your ProjectCatagory table ID.

Related

How to implement Entity Framework if my tables have unconventional column names?

I've joined a team that uses non standard names for tables and columns, and have trouble building database-first projects with Entity Framework.
Here's my problem:
tFWAClientProcessing (Table)
FWAClientHandling (Primary Key, INT)
iClientID (Foreign Key, INT)
.
tClients (Table)
AClientID (Primary Key, INT)
sClientName (VARCHAR(255))
I need Entity Framework to detect the relationship between these two tables without making changes to those tables in production.
I'd long given up on EDMX and convention-based mapping for relationships and just set up EF via EntityConfiguration classes. Attributes in the entity definitions are another option which should work for simple cases like identifying column names. You can also wire up mapping in the OnModelCreating override directly.
For instance: To have entities called Client and FWAClientProcessing for that table structure:
public class Client
{
public int ClientId { get; set; }
public string ClientName { get; set; }
}
public class FWAClientProcessing
{
public int FWAClientProcessingId { get; set; }
public virtual Client Client { get; set; }
}
public class ClientConfiguration : EntityTypeConfiguration<Client>
{
public ClientConfiguration()
{
ToTable("tClients"); // assumes default schema, i.e. "dbo" in SQL Server. Can add schema name as 2nd parameter otherwise.
HasKey(x => x.ClientId)
.Property(x => x.ClientId)
.HasColumnName("iClientID");
Property(x => x.ClientName)
.HasColumnName("sClientName");
}
}
public class FWAClientProcessingConfiguration : EntityTypeConfiguration<FWAClientPrcessing>
{
public FWAClientProcessingConfiguration()
{
ToTable("tFWAClientProcessing");
HasKey(x => x.FWAClientProcessingId)
.Property(x => x.FWAClientProcessingId)
.HasColumnName("FWAClientHandling");
HasRequired(x => x.Client)
.WithMany()
.Map(x => x.MapKey("iClientID"));
}
}
Assuming that the EntityTypeConfiguration classes are in the same assembly as the entities, and the DBContext, registering them in the context becomes:
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Configurations.AddFromAssembly(TypeOf(YourDbContex).Assembly);
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
}
These examples are for EF6, EF Core uses the concept of Shadow Properties for mapping FK relationships without exposing FK properties, and can accommodate the different column naming. EntityTypeConfiguration is available as an Interface with a Configure method accepting the builder.
I favor using the explicit entity type configuration by default as it keeps the configuration nicely isolated and out of the way and can handle all mapping scenarios that might come up that annotations cannot do. It's a bit of a one-off cost to set up, but at least then you have full visibility and control over how the schema is mapped and not simply hoping EF works things out. :)
Use the modern replacement for EDMX-based Database-First and reverse-engineer a code-first model from the existing database. Customizing an EDMX-based model with its mappings is a rabbit-hole of obsolete technology.
This is available for EF Core and EF6.
The reverse-engineered model is then a starting point for you to make model customizations, like mapping the tables and columns to sensible names, and configuring any Navigation Properties that for whatever reason didn't get picked up by the tooling.
You are right, it is easier if people follow the entity framework conventions. However, if you have to deviate from them, OnModelCreating is your friend.
In OnModelCreating, from every Table, column, relation between tables, that are not standard, you can inform entity framework about these deviations.
You can give different table names
You can use other column names
You can say that certain properties should be saved in certain database formats, for instance ProductPrice is a decimal with 2 digits after the decimal point, instead of the default number of digits.
etc.
There seems to be a one-to-many relation between Clients and ClientsProcessing: every Client with primary key Id, has zero or more ClientsProcessings, every ClientProcessing belongs to exactly one Client, namely the Client that the foreign key ClientId refers to.
You want to use unconventional table names, unconventional names for you primary and foreign keys, and you need to inform about what keys are used to define the one-to-many relation.
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
// Configure DbSet<Client>:
ver clients = modelBuilder.Entity<Client>();
clients.ToTable("tClients")
.HasKey(client => client.Id)
// property Id should be in "AClientID"
clients.Property(client => client.Id).HasColumnName("AClientID");
clients.Property(client => client.Name).HasColumnName("sClientName");
Apart from different names of the columns, you can also declare whether the properties are required or optional, what format they should have (is a decimal with two digits after the decimal point, or does it have four digits?), etc.
Do something similar for modelBuilder.Entity<ClientProcessing>();
For the one-to-many relation: every Client has zero or more ClientProcessings; every ClientProcessing belongs to exactly one (required!) Client, namely the foreign key that ClientId refers to:
clients.HasMany(client => client.ClientProcessings)
.WithRequired(clientProcessing => clientProcessing.Client)
.HasForeignKey(clientProcessing => clientProcessing.ClientId);
Or if you want, you can start at ClienProcessing: every ClientProcessing has exactly one Client (required!), using foreign key ClientId. Every Client has many ClientProcessings.
modelBuilder.Entity<ClientProcessing>()
.HasRequired(clientProcessing => clientProcessing.Client)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(clientProcessing => clientProcessing.ClientId);
Note: by default this will cascade on delete: whenever you delete a client, you will also delete all its processings: you did define there are no processings without a client.
In some relations, you don't want this, especially many-to-many relations or one-to-zero-or-one relation: a Student may have zero or one School-supplied-Laptop. If you delete the Laptop, you don't want to delete the Student as well. In that case you'll have to add .WillCascadeOnDelete(false)

Few questions about nhibernate & fluent nhibernate

I have a couple questions.
I been reading in nhibernate beginners guide 3 about using auto mapper with fluent. I read about this before(and I use auto mapper in my project already) however I am still not sure about a couple things.
What happens when you need to put like Not.Null(), or have to set a length, or inverse on something. How do you set those up? Won't you have to setup auto mapper for each of these properties that have these settings? Won't that sort of default the purpose?
I also been reading about common mistakes and one mistake was talking about when you need readonly. I am actually suffering from this problem and had to make a fix that I was never that happy about.
From reading this I am wondering if it is wise to have 2 mappings of these classes that I need to have readonly
Say I have this
public PlanMap()
{
Table("Plans");
Id(x => x.Id);
Map(x => x.Name).Not.Nullable().NvarcharWithMaxSize();
Map(x => x.Description).Not.Nullable().NvarcharWithMaxSize();
Map(x => x.Price).Not.Nullable();
Map(x => x.Discount).Not.Nullable();
Map(x => x.LengthInMonths).Not.Nullable();
References(x => x.Role).Not.Nullable();
HasMany(x => x.Students).Cascade.All();
}
So would it be wise to have that and then have
public ReadOnlyPlanMap()
{
Table("Plans");
ReadOnly();
SchemaAction.None();
Id(x => x.Id);
Map(x => x.Name).Not.Nullable().NvarcharWithMaxSize();
Map(x => x.Description).Not.Nullable().NvarcharWithMaxSize();
Map(x => x.Price).Not.Nullable();
Map(x => x.Discount).Not.Nullable();
Map(x => x.LengthInMonths).Not.Nullable();
References(x => x.Role).Not.Nullable();
HasMany(x => x.Students).Cascade.All();
}
Then when I need ReadOnly I use that mapping when I don't I use the other mapping? The only thing I see wrong about this is duplicate code. I am not sure if I can use inheritance or something to solve that problem though.
3.I read in the book that it recommend not to use the "auto" incrementing option in your database but instead use a hi-lo one setup in nhibernate to handle this.
In the book it says if you did something like session.Save(object); it would actually go and contact the server and this would break the unit of work. Does this happen when "auto" incrementing is set on the database? I never saw evidence of that happening and actually I had to commit a record before I would actually see the id.
When you use hi-lo what datatype does your column have to be? I usually use for my pk a incrementing int. Can I still use a int?
Finally from alot of examples I seen they usually make their PK properties like this
public virtual int Id { get; private set; }
Yet in the book I constantly saw
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
I thought using private set was the way to go to stop people from making their own number for the PK.
You would have better luck getting all of your questions answered if you broke them up into separate questions, but I'll address a couple of your questions anyway:
Automapping, Custom Conventions, and Overrides
If one of your business requirements is that most properties should not be nullable then you should make that the default by providing your own convention to the automapper. Take a look at this blog post for how you can do this.
Then if you have a mapping that needs to differ slightly from your conventions, then you can provide an automapping override by implementing IAutoMappingOverride<T> where in you only specify the columns/ids/relationships that are aberrant to the conventions.
The documentation at the FluentNHibernate wiki on Overrides and Conventions is actually quite good, I highly recommend reading it.
Readonly Entities
If I was doing this, what I'd do is have an NHibernate ignored, internal set property called something like IsReadonly { get; internal set; }, when an object is retrieved from somewhere that it should be read-only, then set that property before returning it to the caller.
If you have an explicit Save method on a repository, you can check that property and not do the actual NHibernate save if it's true. If you rely on the NHibernate dirty checking for saving on session Flush then you could implement an NHibernate listener which would not save the entity if that property was true.
Identifiers
One word (acronym) GUID; hi-lo can work, but it can get complicated and a bit finicky. For NHibernate to properly track the object it has to have a unique ID. If you're using auto ids then NHibernate will go to the database to get an ID when you Save your entity and before you do the Flush.
Comb GUIDs solve the problems that you'll run into with auto ids and hi-lo in exchange for taking a little bit more space in your DB, and memory. When using FluentNHibernate automapping, if your entity has a GUID as the type of it's Id property, it will automatically use the Guid Comb strategy.

Nhibernate entity with multiple Many-To-Many lists of the same type?

Does anybody know how I would map an entity with two many-to-many collections of the same child type.
My database structure is this....
The "normal" relationship will be....
tbl_Parent
col_Parent_ID
tbl_Parent_Child_Xref
col_Parent_ID
col_Child_ID
tbl_Child
col_Child_ID
The alternative relationship is...
tbl_Parent
col_Parent_ID
tbl_Include_ParentChild_Xref
col_Parent_ID
col_Child_ID
tbl_Child
col_Child_ID
The entity and mapping look like this...
public partial class ParentEntity : AuditableDataEntity<ParentEntity>
{
public virtual IList<ChildEntity> Children { get; set; }
public virtual IList<ChildEntity> IncludedChildren { get; set; }
}
public partial class ParentMap : IAutoMappingOverride<ParentEntity>
{
public void Override(AutoMapping<ParentEntity> mapping)
{
mapping.Table("tbl_Parent");
mapping.HasManyToMany(x => x.Children)
.Table("tbl_Parent_Child_Xref")
.ParentKeyColumn("col_Parent_ID")
.ChildKeyColumn("col_Child_ID")
.Inverse()
.Cascade.All();
mapping.HasManyToMany(x => x.IncludedChildren)
.Table("tbl_Include_ParentChild_Xref")
.ParentKeyColumn("col_Parent_ID")
.ChildKeyColumn("col_Child_ID")
.Inverse()
.Cascade.All();
}
}
The error that I'm getting is
"System.NotSupportedException: Can't figure out what the other side of the many-to-many property 'Children' should be."
I'm using NHibernate 2.1.2, FluentNhibernate 1.0.
It seems FNH is confused because you seem to map the same object (ChildEntity) to two different tables, if I'm not mistaken.
If you don't really need the two lists to get separated, perhaps using a discriminating value for each of your lists would solve the problem. Your first ChildEntity list would bind to the discriminationg value A, and you sesond to the discriminating value B, for instance.
Otherwise, I would perhaps opt for a derived class of your ChildEntity, just not to have the same name of ChildEntity.
IList<ChildEntity> ChildEntities
IList<IncludedChildEntity> IncludedChildEntities
And both your objects classes would be identitical.
If you say it works with NH, then it might be a bug as already stated. However, you may mix both XML mappings and AutoMapping with FNH. So, if it does work in NH, this would perhaps be my preference. But think this workaround should do it.
You know I'm just shooting in the dark here, but it almost sounds like your ChildEntity class isn't known by Hibernate .. that's typically where I've seen that sort of message. Hibernate inspects your class and sees this referenced class (ChildEntity in this case) that id doesn't know about.
Maybe you've moved on and found the issue at this point, but thought I'd see anyway.
Fluent is confused because you are referencing the same parent column twice. That is a no-no. And as far as I can tell from the activity i have seen, a fix is not coming any time soon.
You would have to write some custom extensions to get that working, if it is possible.
To my great pity, NHibernate cannot do that. Consider using another ORM.

Fluent Nhibernate composed entity, specify parent key

In this question I was answered hot to map a composed entity from the primary key of the table.
So given:
public UserMap()
{
WithTable("aspnet_Users");
Id(x => x.Id, "UserId")
.GeneratedBy.Guid();
Map(x => x.Name, "UserName");
Map(x => x.Login, "LoweredUserName");
WithTable("LdapUsers", m => {
m.Map(x => x.FullName, "FullName");
m.WithKeyColumn("UserId");
});
}
everithing works if in the "LdapUser" and in the "aspnet_Users" there is a column named "UserId".
What If I want to specify both the colum name for the foreign key table and the column name for the key from the main table as this is not the pk so use another column to do the join?
It looks like this is not currently supported at all in NHibernate. There is an open issue for it on NHibernate's JIRA. Actually, I think this is for collections but probably applies for what you're doing as well. The idea is you would add a property-ref attribute on your <key> element that points to the property you want to reference instead of the primary key.
Supposedly the change is already available in the Alpha2 release of NHibernate 2.1.0. Of course, it might be sometime after NH2.1 is a general release before this gets added to FNH. If you can, I would recommend getting a hold of the Alpha2 release and trying it with your situation. If it doesn't work for your composed entity, only collections, you might want to submit another issue on JIRA so it gets added as well.

fluent nhibernate HasOne WithForeignKey not working

Whenever I load a Task class, the Document property is always null, despite there being data in the db.
Task class:
public class Task
{
public virtual Document Document { get; set; }
Task Mapping override for AutoPersistenceModel:
public void Override(AutoMap<Task> mapping)
{
mapping.HasOne(x => x.Document)
.WithForeignKey("Task_Id");
As you can see form what NHProf says is being run, the join condition is wrong, the WithForeignKey doesnt seem to take effect. In fact, i can write any string in the above code and it makes no difference.
FROM [Task] this_
left outer join [Document] document2_
on this_.Id = document2_.Id
It should be:
FROM [Task] this_
left outer join [Document] document2_
on this_.Id = document2_.Task_Id
If i hack the data in the db so that the ids match, then data is loaded, but obviously this is incorrect - but at least it proves it loads data.
Edit: rummaging in the fluent nhib source to find the XML produces this:
<one-to-one foreign-key="Task_Id" cascade="all" name="Document" class="MyProject.Document, MyProject, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null" />
Edit: heres the schema:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Document](
[Id] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[Task_Id] [int] NOT NULL,
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Task](
[Id] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
Anyone got any ideas?
Thanks
Andrew
I ran into the same issue today. I believe the trick is not to use .ForeignKey(...) with the .HasOne mapping, but to use .PropertyRef(...) instead. The following is how I define a One-to-one relationship between an Organisation (Parent) and its Admin (Child):
HasOne(x => x.Admin).PropertyRef(r => r.Organisation).Cascade.All();
The Admin has a simple reference to the Organisation using its Foreign Key:
References(x => x.Organisation, "ORAD_FK_ORGANISATION").Not.Nullable();
When retrieving an Organisation, this will load up the correct Admin record, and properly cascades updates and deletes.
You should use:
References(x => x.Document, "DocumentIdColumnOnTask")
I think the problem here is that the "HasOne" convention means that you are pointing at the other thing(the standard relational way to say "Many To One"/"One to One"); By putting a Task_ID on the document the actual relationship is a HasMany but you have some kind of implicit understanding that there will only be one document per task.
Sorry - I don't know how to fix this, but I will be interested in seeing what the solution is (I don't use NHibernate or Fluent NHibernate, but I have been researching it to use in the future). A solution (from someone with very little idea) would be to make Documents a collection on Task, and then provide a Document property that returns the first one in the collection (using an interface that hides the Documents property so no one thinks they can add new items to it).
Looking through documentation and considering eulerfx's answer, Perhaps the approach would be something like:
References(x => x.Document)
.TheColumnNameIs("ID")
.PropertyRef(d => d.Task_ID);
EDIT: Just so this answer has the appropriate solution: The correct path is to update the database schema to match the intent of the code. That means adding a DocumentID to the Task table, so there is a Many-To-One relationship between Task and Document. If schema changes were not possible, References() would be the appropriate resolution.
I've tried this solution:
just in Document:
mapping.HasOne(x => x.Task).ForeignKey("Task_ID").Constrained().Cascade.All();
As eulerfx pointed out,
the table structure indicates that there maybe mulitple documents for a task
and Chris stated:
By putting a Task_ID on the document the actual relationship is a HasMany but you have some kind of implicit understanding that there will only be one document per task.
This is of course correct so I have reversed it so Task has a nullable Document_Id.
Thanks to both of you for you help!
I flipped a coin for the accepted answer, if i could tick both i would!
I have been struggling with the same Has One problem and finally found that this worked:
public class ParentMap : ClassMap<Parent>
{
public ParentMap()
{
Id(x => x.Id);
HasOne(s => s.Child).Cascade.All();
}
}
public class ChildMap : ClassMap<Model.Child>
{
public ChildMap()
{
Id(x => x.Id);
HasOne(s => s.Parent).Constrained().ForeignKey();
}
}