I am just starting out with ADO.net Entity Framework I have mapped two tables together and receive the following error:
Error 1 Error 11010: Association End 'OperatorAccess' is not mapped. E:\Visual Studio\projects\Brandi II\Brandi II\Hospitals.edmx 390 11 Brandi II
Not sure what it is I am doing wrong.
I believe I can add some more clarity to the issue (learning as I go):
When I look at the Mapping details and look at the association, the column for operatoraccess table (from above) is blank and the drop down only includes field from the linked table.
The Entity Framework designer is terrible - I've had the same problem many times (and your problem too, Craig):
This happens when you have a many-to-one association which is improperly setup. They could very easily fix the designer to make this process simple; but instead, we have to put up with this crap.
To fix:
Click on the association, and go to the mapping details view.
Under association, click on Maps to <tablename>. Choose the table(s) which make up the many side of the relationship (ie. the table(s) which make up the *-side of the association in the designer)
Under Column, choose the table-columns which map to each entity-side Property. You get this error when one of those entries are blank.
I had the exact same problem and this is what I did to fix it.
Make sure you have an Entity Key set in your designer on the tables your making an association with. Also check that StoreGeneratedPattern is set to Identity for that Entity Key.
There's not a lot of information in your question, but, generally speaking, this means that there is an incompletely defined association. It could be that you have tried to map one table with a foreign key to another table, but have not mapped that other table. You can also get this error when you try to do table per type inheritance without carefully following the steps for implementing that feature.
Not sure of the answer, but I've just posted a similar question, which may at least help clarify the issue you are experiencing.
Defining an Entity Framework 1:1 association
I had to go back into the database itself and clarify the foreign key relationship
I had this problem in the case where I was creating both many to 0..1 and 0..1 to 0..1 associations. One entity needed associations to multiple tables, and that entity did not have foreign keys defined for those tables.
I had to do the table mappings step that is given in the accepted answer, but note that it wasn't only for many to many associations; it applied to all the types of associations I added for this entity.
In the Mapping Details view, I had to select the entity with the non-foreign key ID columns to the various tables. This is not always the "many" side of the relationship. Only there was I able to map the related entity property to the appropriate property in the original entity. Selecting the "destination" entity would not allow me to select the properties that I needed to, and the error would still exist.
So in short, I had to map using the table related to the entity that had the "non-foreign key" ID fields corresponding to the various entities' (and their tables') primary keys that I needed to associate.
Entity A
various other properties...
Id
ContactId
OrderId
etc.
Contact entity
Id
FirstName
LastName
etc.
In the mapping details, I selected Entity A's table. It then showed both ends of the association. I mapped its Entity A's Id property to its table's actual ID column (they had different names). I then mapped the Contact entity's Id field to the ContactId field on the A entity.
Simply select the many relationship table (*) from the Association>Edit Mapping & select the appropriate relationship
Related
I have a design problem with regards to Entity Framework model relationship
I have this model in the edmx
Business Rule:
A Participant can have multiple Roles so I create a relationship table ParticipantRoles that has 1-to-Many relationship on the Participant and the Role table
The Problem:
In order to get the Participant's Role value, I have to drill down through Participant->ParticipantRole->Role (see JSON output below)
The Question:
In EF, how to design the table relationship to bypass the ParticipantsRole table. I want to access the Role in something like this Particant.Role and not Participant.ParticipantsRole.Role
You say A Participant can have multiple Roles. And of course, a Role can have multiple Participants. So basically this is a many-to-many association.
Entity Framework will only map pure many-to-many associations (without connecting class) when the junction table only has two foreign keys. In your case, if the table ParticipantsRole only would have had a primary key consisting of ParticipantId and RoleId at the time of generating the model the class ParticipantsRole would not have been created. You would have had Participant.Roles and Role.Participants as navigation properties.
However, the model has been generated with ParticipantsRole and you want to get rid of it. (Or not, I'll get back to that).
This is what you can do:
Remove ParticipantRoles from the class diagram.
Modify the database table ParticipantRoles so it only has the two FK columns, that both form the primary key.
Update the model from the database and select ParticipantsRole in the Add tab.
This should give you a model with a pure many-to-many association.
However, think twice before you do this. M2m associations have a way of evolving into 1-m-1association (as you've got now). The reason is that sooner or later the need is felt to record data about the association, so the junction table must have more fields and stops being a pure junction table. In your case I can imagine that one day participant's roles must have a fixed order, or one marked as default. It can be a major overhaul to change a m2m association into 1-m-1 in a production environment. - Something to consider...
I have two models :
Card with has_many relation to Works
I mean i have 7 static works in my database and i can choose some of them when i create a Card.
I defined a has_many relationship like this :
My problem is strange... it seems to work, but when i explore my sqlite file, i don't see any table relationship between Card and Work.
I am expecting a table with card_id and work_id.
How core data store has many relationship?
Firstly, I'd caution you from opening up the sqlite files Core Data spits out and trying to infer things from them. It's meant to be an opaque format: you're only supposed to interact with Core Data persistent stores through the Core Data APIs.
However, to answer your question: in general in database design, you wouldn't use a linking table like you describe for a one-to-many relationship, only for a many-to-many. For a one-to-many, you'd have a foreign key field in the table at the 'one' end, and have the contents of that field be the primary key of another table. For example (sorry for the random example I found on Google):
tblOrder is in a one-to-many relationship with tblOrderDetails. This is implemented by having an Order# field in the to-many side of the relationship, which is a foreign key referring to the primary key of the tblOrder table. As you can see, no linking table is needed.
A many-to-many relationship would need a linking table, but a one-to-many does not.
One final point: I note in your screenshot that you don't have an inverse relationship set up for your works or customer relationships. Core Data requires all relationships to have an inverse, otherwise your data may become corrupted. (That's somewhat a simplification, since there are other ways to work around it, but in general making inverses is easiest.)
I have a trip (primary: idTrip), where I can link more packages (primary: idPackage), so, I got a relationship table to link trips with packages (primary: idRelTripPackage). (relationship n-to-n)
And next I got a registrations table (primary: idRegistration). How do I best link those (1-to-1 relationship)?
I add two columns in the registrations table (idTrip, idPackage)?
I add a relationship table where i link idRegistration, idTrip, idPackage?
I add a relationship table where i link idRegistration, idRelTripPackage?
Am I right in thinking the relation from Registrations is to RelTripPackage, and its definitely one-to-one. There are a couple of options:
1: As it really is a one-to-one there's not really anything to stop you putting the Registrations data directly onto RelTripPackage, or doing the vice-versa and putting idPackage and idTrip straight onto Registrations as FKs, with a unique key across the two FK columns to ensure there aren't duplicates.
2: If do want the two separate tables then just add idRetTripPackage to Registrations as an FK, and then add a unique constraint on it - again to ensure uniqueness.
There's no need for a separate relationship table as its a 1-1 relationship - They only really become relevant when you are using an n-n. The rest of the time FKs should be placed directly on the child table.
If you follow that logic, you will
add tables and Relations every time you need to add Relations
end up with confusing or duplicate Relations (multiple paths between any two tables)
However the problem (limiting factor) is that the tables you are starting with are not actually normalised. Since the starting position does not have a good basis, you will end up with far more Relations (in tables) than there actually are between the Entities. So the best advice is, the Best practice is, before you attempt this current extension, step back and normalise the data, the existing tables. Then the extension will be much easier, and you will end up with less tables.
if you provide info re the tables (Person, Trip, Package, etc); what exactly is a Registration, etc ... I can provide more explicit answers.
Generally any attribute that is 1::1 with the PK of an Entity should be an attribute in that entity. Any attribute that is 1::0-1 with the PK of an Entity should be in a separate table.
ER Diagram
Based on the information provided, this is your ▶Entity Relation Diagram◀. As long as you use Relational Identifiers, all the Relations you have identified thus far are supported directly (otherwise, if you use IDs, you will need more Relations and tables).
Readers who are unfamiliar with the Relational Database Modelling standard may find ▶IDEF1X Notation◀ useful.
Currently I have a table "ComponentAnalysis" and a table "HistoryOfUse" that I am trying to map in Fluent NHibernate.
A component analysis should only have 1 history of use and a history of use should belong to 1 component analysis. This would suggest to me that the tables should be set up for a 1 to 1 mapping. But the designer of the DB didn't set it up that way.
Instead "HistoryOfUse" has a column "ComponentAnalysisID" to specify what component analysis it belongs to. To conform to the database I should have HistoryOfUse References ComponentAnalysis and ComponentAnalysis should HasMany HistoryOfUse.
But if I do this then I need to have a list of type HistoryOfUse which seems fairly annoying. Is there a way to set this up, without changing the database, to allow ComponentAnalysis to have a single HistoryOfUse object even though, according to the DB structure, it should have a list of them?
You can use HasOne method to map your classes. Here is the detailed article about this.
Your class ComponentAnalysis will "HasOne(x => x.HistoryOfUse)". Column HistoryOfUse.ComponentAnalysisID should be a unique key and a foreign key referenced to the ComponentAnalysis.ID column.
I have to add functionality to an existing application and I've run into a data situation that I'm not sure how to model. I am being restricted to the creation of new tables and code. If I need to alter the existing structure I think my client may reject the proposal.. although if its the only way to get it right this is what I will have to do.
I have an Item table that can me link to any number of tables, and these tables may increase over time. The Item can only me linked to one other table, but the record in the other table may have many items linked to it.
Examples of the tables/entities being linked to are Person, Vehicle, Building, Office. These are all separate tables.
Example of Items are Pen, Stapler, Cushion, Tyre, A4 Paper, Plastic Bag, Poster, Decoration"
For instance a Poster may be allocated to a Person or Office or Building. In the future if they add a Conference Room table it may also be added to that.
My intital thoughts are:
Item
{
ID,
Name
}
LinkedItem
{
ItemID,
LinkedToTableName,
LinkedToID
}
The LinkedToTableName field will then allow me to identify the correct table to link to in my code.
I'm not overly happy with this solution, but I can't quite think of anything else. Please help! :)
Thanks!
It is not a good practice to store table names as column values. This is a bad hack.
There are two standard ways of doing what you are trying to do. The first is called single-table inheritance. This is easily understood by ORM tools but trades off some normalization. The idea is, that all of these entities - Person, Vehicle, whatever - are stored in the same table, often with several unused columns per entry, along with a discriminator field that identifies what type the entity is.
The discriminator field is usually an integer type, that is mapped to some enumeration in your code. It may also be a foreign key to some lookup table in your database, identifying which numbers correspond to which types (not table names, just descriptions).
The other way to do this is multiple-table inheritance, which is better for your database but not as easy to map in code. You do this by having a base table which defines some common properties of all the objects - perhaps just an ID and a name - and all of your "specific" tables (Person etc.) use the base ID as a unique foreign key (usually also the primary key).
In the first case, the exclusivity is implicit, since all entities are in one table. In the second case, the relationship is between the Item and the base entity ID, which also guarantees uniqueness.
Note that with multiple-table inheritance, you have a different problem - you can't guarantee that a base ID is used by exactly one inheritance table. It could be used by several, or not used at all. That is why multiple-table inheritance schemes usually also have a discriminator column, to identify which table is "expected." Again, this discriminator doesn't hold a table name, it holds a lookup value which the consumer may (or may not) use to determine which other table to join to.
Multiple-table inheritance is a closer match to your current schema, so I would recommend going with that unless you need to use this with Linq to SQL or a similar ORM.
See here for a good detailed tutorial: Implementing Table Inheritance in SQL Server.
Find something common to Person, Vehicle, Building, Office. For the lack of a better term I have used Entity. Then implement super-type/sub-type relationship between the Entity and its sub-types. Note that the EntityID is a PK and a FK in all sub-type tables. Now, you can link the Item table to the Entity (owner).
In this model, one item can belong to only one Entity; one Entity can have (own) many items.
your link table is ok.
the trouble you will have is that you will need to generate dynamic sql at runtime. parameterized sql does not typically allow the objects inthe FROM list to be parameters.
i fyou want to avoid this, you may be able to denormalize a little - say by creating a table to hold the id (assuming the ids are unique across the other tables) and the type_id representing which table is the source, and a generated description - e.g. the name value from the inital record.
you would trigger the creation of this denormalized list when the base info is modified, and you could use that for generalized queries - and then resort to your dynamic queries when needed at runtime.