When I run application I have this error:
PossibleAnswer_Question_Source: : Multiplicity is not valid in Role
'PossibleAnswer_Question_Source' in relationship
'PossibleAnswer_Question'. Because the Dependent Role properties are
not the key properties, the upper bound of the multiplicity of the
Dependent Role must be '*'.
How to resolve it?
Model classes for Question and PossibleAnswer:
public class Question
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
public bool IsAssociatedWithProfessor { get; set; }
public bool IsAssociatedWithAssistant { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<PossibleAnswer> PossibleAnswers { get; set; }
}
public class PossibleAnswer
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
public int QuestionID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("QuestionID")]
public virtual Question Question { get; set; }
}
And I put this in OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder):
modelBuilder.Entity<PossibleAnswer>()
.HasRequired(f => f.Question)
.WithRequiredDependent()
.WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
The problem is you are not configuring a one-to-many relationship in the OnModelCreating method (that is a one-to-one configuration). To achieve what you want, you could do this:
modelBuilder.Entity<PossibleAnswer>()
.HasRequired(pa => pa.Question)
.WithMany(q=>q.PossibleAnswers)
.HasForeignKey(pa=>pa.QuestionID)
.WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
This way, you don't need to use the ForeignKey attribute on the Question navigation property. Is a good practice try to not merge Fluent Api with Data Annotations
Related
Is it possible to build two optional one-to-one relationship in SQL?
I'd like to have:
public class EventInvoice
{
[Key]
public int ID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("SZ_Event")]
public Nullable<int> SZ_EventID { get; set; }
public virtual SzopbudkaEvent SZ_Event { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("UP_Event")]
public Nullable<int> UP_EventID { get; set; }
public virtual Event UP_Event { get; set; }
}
public class Event
{
[Key]
public int EventID { get; set; }
public virtual EventInvoice EventInvoice { get; set; }
}
public class SzopbudkaEvent
{
[Key]
public int ID { get; set; }
public virtual EventInvoice EventInvoice { get; set; }
}
My invoice can be combined only with one of those objects (Event or SzopbudkaEvent). Is it possible to use it like this or I have to write something different?
You can do this but there are two things to bear in mond.
If the constraint is only one of the FK's can exist, then in the database the FK columns on the EventInvoice tale must be nullable. You've got this but I thought I'd emphasise it.
If there is also a constraint that there must be one of them (missing both is not allowed) then you have to work out how to validate that constraint. In the DB I'd use a trigger fir insert, update that raises an exception if both are null. I'd match that in code with a pre-save check: this describes implementing interface IValidatableObject with a Validate method which EF will call when the object is affected by SaveChanges.
I have two entities in my MVC application and I populated the database with Entity Framework 6 Code First approach. There are two city id in the Student entity; one of them for BirthCity, the other for WorkingCity. When I define the foreign keys as above an extra column is created named City_ID in the Student table after migration. Id there a mistake or how to define these FKs? Thanks in advance.
Student:
public class Student
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Surname { get; set; }
public int BirthCityID { get; set; }
public int LivingCityID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("BirthCityID")]
public virtual City BirthCity { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("LivingCityID")]
public virtual City LivingCity { get; set; }
}
City:
public class City
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string CityName { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Student> Students { get; set; }
}
To achieve what you want you need to provide some aditional configuration.Code First convention can identify bidirectional relationships, but not when there are
multiple bidirectional relationships between two entities.You can add configuration (using Data Annotations or the Fluent API) to present this
information to the model builder. With Data Annotations, you’ll use an annotation
called InverseProperty. With the Fluent API, you’ll use a combination of the Has/With methods to specify the correct ends of these relationships.
Using Data Annotations could be like this:
public class Student
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Surname { get; set; }
public int BirthCityID { get; set; }
public int LivingCityID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("BirthCityID")]
[InverseProperty("Students")]
public virtual City BirthCity { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("LivingCityID")]
public virtual City LivingCity { get; set; }
}
This way you specifying explicitly that you want to relate the BirthCity navigation property with Students navigation property in the other end of the relationship.
Using Fluent Api could be like this:
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Student>().HasRequired(m => m.BirthCity)
.WithMany(m => m.Students).HasForeignKey(m=>m.BirthCityId);
modelBuilder.Entity<Student>().HasRequired(m => m.LivingCity)
.WithMany().HasForeignKey(m=>m.LivingCityId);
}
With this last solution you don't need to use any attibute.
Now, the suggestion of #ChristPratt in have a collection of Student in your City class for each relationship is really useful. If you do that, then the configurations using Data Annotations could be this way:
public class Student
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Surname { get; set; }
public int BirthCityID { get; set; }
public int LivingCityID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("BirthCityID")]
[InverseProperty("BirthCityStudents")]
public virtual City BirthCity { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("LivingCityID")]
[InverseProperty("LivingCityStudents")]
public virtual City LivingCity { get; set; }
}
Or using Fluent Api following the same idea:
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Student>().HasRequired(m => m.BirthCity)
.WithMany(m => m.BirthCityStudents).HasForeignKey(m=>m.BirthCityId);
modelBuilder.Entity<Student>().HasRequired(m => m.LivingCity)
.WithMany(m => m.LivingCityStudents).HasForeignKey(m=>m.LivingCityId);
}
Sheesh. It's been a long day. There's actually a very big, glaring problem with your code, actually, that I completely missed when I commented.
The problem is that you're using a single collection of students on City. What's actually happening here is that EF can't decide which foreign key it should actually map that collection to, so it creates another foreign key specifically to track that relationship. Then, in effect you have no navigation properties for the collections of students derived from BirthCity and LivingCity.
For this, you have to drop down to fluent configuration, as there's no way to configure this properly using just data annotations. You'll also need an additional collection of students so you can track both relationships:
public class City
{
...
public virtual ICollection<Student> BirthCityStudents { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Student> LivingCityStudents { get; set; }
}
Then, for Student:
public class Student
{
...
public class StudentMapping : EntityTypeConfiguration<Student>
{
public StudentMapping()
{
HasRequired(m => m.BirthCity).WithMany(m => m.BirthCityStudents);
HasRequired(m => m.LivingCity).WithMany(m => m.LivingCityStudents);
}
}
}
And finally in your context:
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Configurations.Add(new Student.StudentMapping());
}
public class Slider_Locale
{
[Key]
public int Slider_LocaleID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Culture")]
public int CultureID { get; set; }
public string Slogan { get; set; }
public virtual Culture Culture { get; set; }
}
public class Culture
{
[Key]
public int CultureID { get; set; }
public string CultureName { get; set; }
public string DisplayName { get; set; }
public virtual Slider_Locale slider_Locale { get; set; }
}
It gives error as follows:
One or more validation errors were detected during model generation:
System.Data.Edm.EdmAssociationEnd: : Multiplicity is not valid in Role
'Slider_Locale_Culture_Source' in relationship
'Slider_Locale_Culture'. Because the Dependent Role properties are not
the key properties, the upper bound of the multiplicity of the
Dependent Role must be �*�.
How could I design the relationship?. Please help me as I am newbie in mvc and entity.
This is one of those things that's a little tricky to wrap your brain around at first. The issue is that you're trying to set up a 1:1 (or 1:0) mapping, but there's nothing in your model to enforce that kind of mapping. For example, what if you have more than one Slider_Locale object with the same CultureID value? How would your application know which one to pick?
Now, you might know that this will never happen, but the Entity Framework doesn't, and it has to err on the side of caution, so it won't let you set up a relationship that it can't prove is consistent with the table structure. Ideally, it would let you specify unique constraints other than a primary key to work around this, and maybe someday it will, but for now the simplest way around this is to change it to a one-to-many mapping. For example, you could do:
public class Slider_Locale
{
[Key]
public int Slider_LocaleID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Culture")]
public int CultureID { get; set; }
public string Slogan { get; set; }
public virtual Culture Culture { get; set; }
}
public class Culture
{
[Key]
public int CultureID { get; set; }
public string CultureName { get; set; }
public string DisplayName { get; set; }
// Note that this got changed to ICollection<>
public virtual ICollection<Slider_Locale> slider_Locales { get; set; }
}
Another thing you could do is change the classes so that they share the same primary key values, but in order to do that you'll have to make at least one of the relationships optional. I could give an example of this if you let me know whether Slider_Locale.Culture can be null, or Culture.slider_Locale, or both.
I'm currently using EF Code First 4.3 with migrations enabled, but automatic migrations disabled.
My question is simple, is there a data annotations equivalent of the model configuration .WillCascadeOnDelete(false)
I would like to decorate my class so that the foreign key relationships do NOT trigger a cascading delete.
Code sample:
public class Container
{
public int ContainerID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Output> Outputs { get; set; }
}
public class Output
{
public int ContainerID { get; set; }
public virtual Container Container { get; set; }
public int OutputTypeID { get; set; }
public virtual OutputType OutputType { get; set; }
public int Quantity { get; set; }
}
public class OutputType
{
public int OutputTypeID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
I Would like to do something like this:
public class Output
{
[CascadeOnDelete(false)]
public int ContainerID { get; set; }
public virtual Container Container { get; set; }
[CascadeOnDelete(false)]
public int OutputTypeID { get; set; }
public virtual OutputType OutputType { get; set; }
public int Quantity { get; set; }
}
This way i would be able to scaffold the migration correctly. which scaffolds the foreign key relationships to be cascade deleted at the moment.
Any ideas, other than using Model Configuration?
No there is no such equivalent. You must use fluent API to remove cascade delete selectively or you must remove OneToManyCascadeDelete convention to remove it globally.
Create a mapping class (the fluent syntax) and use the code below:
// add relationships "Post" and "User" to a "Comment" entity
this.HasRequired(t => t.Post)
.WithMany(t => t.Comments)
.HasForeignKey(d => d.PostID)
.WillCascadeOnDelete(false); // <---
this.HasOptional(t => t.User)
.WithMany(t => t.Comments)
.HasForeignKey(d => d.UserID)
.WillCascadeOnDelete(false); // <---
Here's a nice post on how to set up fluent mappings if you need more info.
Just make the FK property nullable can prevent cascade delete from happening:
public int? OutputTypeID { get; set; }
I'm trying to create a list of train journeys (among other things) in MVC, using code first Entity Framework and wondered how I could map foreign keys for the stations. The Journey model/table will have a DepartureStationID and an ArrivalStationID which will be foreign keys linking to one table/model, called Station.
Here is the code for both these models:
public class Station
{
public int StationID { get; set; }
public string StationName { get; set; }
public string StationLocation { get; set; }
}
public class Journey
{
public int JourneyID { get; set; }
public int DepartureID { get; set; }
public int ArrivalID { get; set; }
public int OperatorID { get; set; }
public string JourneyCode { get; set; }
public virtual Operator Operator { get; set; }
public virtual Station DepartureStation { get; set; }
public virtual Station ArrivalStation { get; set; }
}
There is another foreign key value in there, namely Operator and that has mapped successfully, but the departure and arrivals haven't, and return null values in the view: (#Html.DisplayFor(modelItem => item.DepartureStation.StationName).
When I looked in the database, there had been two additional fields created by EF:
DepartureStation_StationID
ArrivalStation_StationID
And the SQL relationship was between the station table and the two fields above, rather than DepartureID and ArrivalID
So, my question is - Do I need to do something different in the model when referencing the same table for two fields? I don't know why those additional fields were added so I presume I've set up the model incorrectly.
Thanks
For completeness, here's the same thing with fluent configuration.
public class MyDb : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Journey> Journeys { get; set; }
public DbSet<Operator> Operators { get; set; }
public DbSet<Station> Stations { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder builder)
{
builder.Entity<Journey>()
.HasRequired(j => j.DepartureStation)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(j => j.DepartureID);
builder.Entity<Journey>()
.HasRequired(j => j.ArrivalStation)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(j => j.ArrivalId);
// ... Same thing for operator ...
base.OnModelCreating(builder);
}
}
Edit: To address your above comment about the cascade delete, you can add .WillCascadeOnDelete(false) after .HasForeignKey() and that might help (although you'll then have to delete Journey records manually)
Add the folowing attributes on your navigation properties :
public class Journey
{
public int JourneyID { get; set; }
public int DepartureID { get; set; }
public int ArrivalID { get; set; }
public int OperatorID { get; set; }
public string JourneyCode { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("OperatorID")]
public virtual Operator Operator { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("DepartureID")]
public virtual Station DepartureStation { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("ArrivalID")]
public virtual Station ArrivalStation { get; set; }
}
And of course you need to regenerate your database in order to apply the new configuration.
Hope this will help.