I'm looking for some guidance here... I have an old ASP.NET webforms site with an existing database and SQL Server membership, and I'm creating a new interface using ASP.NET MVC and Entity Framework with a database-first approach.
So I have tables as shown below:
My problem is, I'm unsure how to make use of these old membership tables for authentication in the new ASP.NET MVC application.
I don't mind whether I migrate the user/roles data to ASP.NET Identity or continue using the old membership database but I'm not sure what the best approach is. I think I would prefer to migrate the data, as I am more familiar with Identity.
What I've tried...
While searching for solutions I have come across this: Migrating an Existing Website from SQL Membership to ASP.NET Identity several times, however this (and most of what I've found so far) is talking about upgrading an existing webforms site to use asp.net identity. I have tried using parts of it to migrate the Membership data to asp.net identity, but of course the remaining instructions don't fit my scenario.
So here's where I'm at now.
I have used the SQL script in the walkthrough linked above to migrate membership data to asp.net identity tables.
I have set up SQLPasswordHasher as described in the walkthrough, since I figure I'll need that function to use existing logins.
I imported those tables to the database that contains the website data, in hopes that I'd only have to deal with a single connection string.
I modified ApplicationDbContext : base... to use that database (it was previously using DefaultConnection (LocalDb)
So now I have these tables populated with data:
Aaand I'm stuck.
It's entirely possible that I'm missing something basic, but anyway if I try to login or register a new user in it's current state I get the error:
The entity type ApplicationUser is not part of the model for the current context.
on the line:
var result = await UserManager.CreateAsync(user, model.Password);`
The only solutions I've been able to find for that error have been on code-first projects: something to do with migrations, which I'm not using (I did try it but received an error on enable-migration "Creating a DbModelBuilder or writing the EDMX from a DbContext created using database-first or model-first is not supported.")
UPDATE
Ok so I came across an answer regarding the The entity type ApplicationUser is not part of the model for the current context. error, apparently using the connection string generated by entity framework can be problematic, so as advised, I made a 'normal' connection string and this seems to be getting closer!
UPDATE 2
I think I have it working, will run some tests though before updating with my solution.
Please follow the below step to do this.
Create a new ASP.NET MVC Project with user authentication.
Now right click on Model folder and add a new item "ADO.NET Entity Data model" enter your model name and select ok now select Database first approach and provide your database name and connection and connection name to be saved in web.config file.
Now go to your web.config file and you will see two connection are defined in your connection string and each connection point to different database , one for IDENTITY and other for which you have added just now.
for eg:
you need to change the data source of the both connection to be same.
So whenever you need to access user info you need to use ApplicationDbContext and for others you can use you 'CustomConn' context which you have defined earlier while adding new model.
Hope this will help you !
Related
At work, I use ASP.NET MVC (not .NET Core) with Entity Framework and SQL Server. However, I wanted to practice a bit with ASP.NET Core MVC and some other SQL Server stuff (like experimenting with SSIS) at home, so I set up a small dev environment for me to work in. I created my database and tables, populated it with information, and created the default template you get with ASP.NET Core MVC. No issues so far!
But then, when I went to add a model into my project, I had no option to add an ADO.NET Entity Data Model like I do at work. After googling around a bit, I saw a mention that you could not create these kinds of models in .NET Core applications: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/357012/can39t-find-adonet-entity-data-model-missing-visua.html. I did some more googling, and it seems like just about every single thing I'm finding online is that you have to use package manager console, and type it all out.
Is this really the only way? Surely there has to be something better... It was very nice in ASP.NET MVC when I could add the model, and then it would take me through a wizard to get everything set up. I could create a new connection string, test the connection to the database, select which tables/views I wanted to add to the model, and I was all set! It was just as nice being able to go into my model and easily update the model with new tables, columns, or anything else I needed.
I get that code-first solutions are more mainstream these days, but I want to stick with the database first approach. Is there a simple, user-friendly (non package-manager console) approach for me to add models like I used to, but still get the benefits of .NET Core? Any good tutorials out there to get me on the right track (that aren't code first)? I appreciate anyone who can point me in the right direction!
I am new to MVC, I received a project from my client, the project is build on MVC, I am unable to identify what approach as been used to in the application. Whether it's code first approach or a database first approach. How to identify it. The developer who designed the project is no more associated with the company so I can't seek his help.
It will be database first if there is an [name].edmx diagram file and some templates (.tt). You can also search for onModelCreating and see if it has the statement throw new UnintentionalCodeFirstException(); which would also indicate it is database first with an edmx.
Also, if it is EF Core it will be Code First.
I am new to MVC, Have created simple application (very basic, only 1 controller) & used Entity Framework as ORM.
There is form for Registration in application, when I fill up that form user is registered & able to login with those credentials.
But there is no table created in my Database, so my question is where this registration information is stored?
I know this need knowledge of May be Membership/forms authentication, but I don't know them also.
I tried to search google for this, but may be I am not able to predict what to search.
EDIT :
Following is tag of DefaultConnection
Data Source=(LocalDb)\v11.0;AttachDbFilename=|DataDirectory|\aspnet-AKShop-20140808100025.mdf
I think that standard DB was created for your membership. Probably at app_data\aspnetdb.mdf.
Before MVC 5, MembershipProvider or SimpleMembershipProvider by default, and data is persisted in (local) SQL server.
In MVC5, ASP.NET Identity 2.0 by default, and the data is persisted through Entity Framework which by default point to MS SQL, though it is easy to switch the persistence to other DB engines.
Identity 2.0 is quite new, and the official release is April this year, so this is why you got mixed info when searching the Internet. Nevertheless, if you have a green field MVC project, it might be better of to use MVC 5 and Identity 2.0.
I'm just now teaching myself MVC4 (did webform for years), and I'm
frustrated - but not about MVC which is pretty good. Entity Framework
is...well
I'm using VS2010.
The problem
We have a real database, you know normalized with like foreign keys and stuff. But every example I find for Entity Framework is direct to the table, but we rarely have a straight table pull - out side of populating dropdowns and such. All of our frontend calls hit a Stored Proc (how old school! expletive deleted)
I love the Model architecture of MVC where you define the attributes of the data coming from the data source - Display Name, Ranges, DataType. etc. So I definitely want to keep this.
Entity Framework and MVC do not want to play well in this senario. I created my edmx file (with SPs only), did my function import for a SP, everything is good....'til now.
Can't Create a Controller from the edmx/designer - Enter Controller Name, pick MVC controller with read using EF, pick the model class that is the FuntionName_Result, and for context pick the ...Entities name. FAIL Unable to retrieve metadata
OK, so now I try EF 5.x DbContext Generator, update the file name and boom I have a model and context - awesome now I can do the cool MVC stuff, lets rebuild the site....oh the horror - everything has been previously defined.
I tried generating the edmx in a different folder and/or deleting it after the DBContext generator, still can't create Controller.
'blah' is not part of the specified 'Context' class, and the 'Context' class could not be modifed to add a 'DbSet' property to it. (For example, the 'Context' class might be in a compiled assembly.)
IF I manually add the DBSet, I'm back to unable to retreive metadata - I am assuming this is happening because it can't connect to the DB. I don't know where to tell it to use the connection string in web.config. - if this is the problem
Here lies dead my MVC hopes of a brighter future.
What am I missing?
I am not married to EF, so if there is a better way to access databases (without writing all the code from scratch) I'm here to listen.
Thanks
Entity framework relies heavily on conventions. It takes a little bit to get used to. For example for connection strings... If entity framework doesn't find a connection string with the same name as your DBcontext class it just makes one (i think it defaults to using the project name as the database name). If this database doesn't exist it will create it locally as a sql express DB. This leads to the kinds of errors like the ones you are reporting.
If you want to define the connection string for entity framework all you need to do is provide a connection string in the web.config. Again conventions.... the connection string should be named the same as your DBContext class and entity framework will just find it.
<connectionStrings>
<add name="MyDbContextClassName" connectionString="..." />
</connectionStrings>
On an architecture note, IMHO ORM's are defiantly the way to go for new application development. It makes getting data into and out of your database soo much easier. That said it is a Big paradigm shift if you are used to accessing everything via sprocs and direct queries to the DB. Don't give up on it. It will frustrate you at first just like picking up any new tech, but it's well worth it in the end.
I have used entity framework and nHibernate for ORM in the past. The thing that I like about entity framework is that if you use code first migration most of the really annoying, tedious, and error prone column mappings are auto generated for you (again using conventions). You sometimes still end up having to do a little mapping but those cases are pretty rare. Maybe a little less rare if you already have a database since your column names will probably not always match entity frameworks conventions. Anyway... This is a big plus in my book and why I would defiantly favor EF over nHibernate.
If you already have a database, with stored procedures you do not need the EF 5.X DbContext Generator. Create either a folder in your project or a new project in your solution for your data access. In that folder/project add a edmx file and configure it to an existing database using the wizard. At this stage you can pull in your stored procedures.
If you open the edmx file, you can go to the model explorer tab and manage the imported functions (stored procs) and their return types.
Once you have that, In your controller, rather than using an instance of DbContext you can just use an instance of your EF Entities. So if you called your edmx 'MyDbAccess' you should be able to use MyDbAccessEntities which will then allow you to access the stored procedures.
I in your App.config file check your
<connectionStrings>
After check if your stored procedures are added in the model context file
YouDBModel.Context.tt
> YourBDModel.Context.cs
I am following the guide on the asp.net site for learning asp.net mvc4.
Link : www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/getting-started-with-aspnet-mvc4/
Thing is, I want to put my movies table in the Default connection. Because I want all of the data to be in ONE database and not two.
I mean. I am confused as to why I can't just have one database, with separate tables. Surely multiple databases will introduce latency, and also scalability issues to my project.
How can I get around this?
That Default connection points to your local db and is what is used for the forms authentication stuff. That db has all of the asp.net role provider schema stuff in it and since it's an "internet" project this is where all the login stuff goes. if you want to have your entities and models hook into that same database when you add your entity framework model point it at that db and your good to go.
After a little further investigation:
It looks like http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/getting-started-with-aspnet-mvc4/adding-a-model is where you define your connection string for your entities. I noticed AttachDbFilename=|DataDirectory|\Movies.mdf in there, and after verifying my thoughts http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/sqldataaccess/thread/f21c0728-935d-492a-baaf-ff2704e3683b/ it looks like that is what is spinning up a second database in the app's data directory called movies.mdf. If you want to keep your 1 default database, change the connection string information in your MovieDBContext string to that of the default connection and and it should create your new movie structure within that same database.