I am struggling with something I think should be basic but cannot figure out. I have two entities in core data with a one to one and one to many relationship. They are Company which can have multiple Opportunities.I want to load a table view listing the opportunities (sorted by name) with their associated companies. Can this be done by simply accessing the Opportunity entity? If so, how do I access company? The Opportunity class references it as a "Company" type and so I tried to go using dot notation through to company.companyName but it failed on that, and if I change it to simply company (of type Company) it does show .Company: and other reference data but not the simple name field I am looking for. This seems as if it should be simple but...........
This was simple and I was overlooking the ability to load the fetchedresultscontroller with the right type (in my case the Opportunity class) and then use dot notation from there. I was trying to do it with key value access which did not work. Cheers
I am fairly new to using Rhomobile, however I am not fully understanding how the local storing works and how to use the Rhom API.
I've set up the RhoStudio and run the configurations.
What I am trying to achieve is basically have two data models (with property bags as default): one for wards, and one for patients so I can create patient and ward objects.
Eventually I would like to list the wards, and the patients that are assigned to the ward objects.
Can someone explain how I use the Rhom API to be able to achieve this?
I have ran a simulation so once I have something like: /app/Patient/{131199009368684.14}/show in the web inspector, so I am assuming that I will need to create an association of some sort.. And then filter it out with a group Query.
In my personal opinion using the RhoMobile Doc's are not helpful enough.
Many thanks if someone can give me a typical example.
Rhodes auto generates unique ids for each instance of a Module, when it is created. This property is called "object". "131199009368684.14" what you got is the "object" of a particular patient that you created. What you can do to link the patients to the ward is:-
Add an additional property to the Patient Model that stores the "object" of the Ward instance you want to link that particular patient to. Thus you will be able to list all the patients in a particular ward by running a find query on column that stores the object of the Ward in the Patient table, by supplying it the particular Ward's object.
Hope this is useful.
I want to have a relation between views in EF. I am following this post to modify it in the xml file.
http://smehrozalam.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/entity-framework-creating-a-model-using-views-instead-of-tables/.
I am getting error,
Custom tool error: Multiplicity is not valid in Role 'VIEW' in relationship 'FK_'. Because the Dependent Role refers to the key properties, the upper bound of the multiplicity of the Dependent Role must be 1.
I am not really sure if I am going the right path.
The main goal of doing this is to use this entity over oData, and have links to the Ids in the view. I am not using the tables directly, because the table has Ids and I want the names to be sent back to the client. The relationship should give the child details.
If there is any other way to achieve this, please help!!
Thanks in Advance
I have 2 entities (say People and Books) that have two many-to-many relationships. I have created two different linking tables - e.g. the linking tables are called BooksCheckedOutByPeople and BooksOnHoldByPeople.
EF 4.0 correctly makes two relationships. It calls them something like PeopleBooks and PeopleBooks1.
When I am making Linq queries, how do I tell Linq to use a specific one of these relationships? Is there any way in Linq to specify one relationship instead of the other?
Say I'm creating a query against People and I want to get the Books for BooksCheckedOutByPeople and thus I need to use the relationship PeopleBooks.
Thanks.
You should be able to rename "PeopleBooks" and "PeopleBooks1" to more informative property names by editing the model EF generates for you. Something like "BooksOnHold" and "BooksCheckedOut".
At that point, when writing your LINQ queries, just reference the right navigation properties (as they're called). LINQ uses whichever properties you specify, and the Entity Framework should generate a unique navigation property for each collection.
Edit
I just fired up VS2010 to copy your model and poke around a bit.
I see that EF4 did indeed generate two Navigation Properties foor Book and Person, called People and People1, and Books and Books1 (respectively).
If you select any of these Navigation Properties in the Model Browser and look at the Properties pane, you should be able to see which table is correlated to that association and rename the property appropriately. Here's a screenshot from my PC:
You can see that I've selected the "People" nav property for the "Book" entity. The association in this case is determined by BooksCheckedOutByPeople, so I can rename the property to "PeopleCheckingOut", or something more useful than "People". When I'm using LINQ-to-Entities later, I then reference the "PeopleCheckingOut" property to query that collection on any specific Book.
Entity Framework 4, POCO objects and ASP.Net MVC2. I have a many to many relationship, lets say between BlogPost and Tag entities. This means that in my T4 generated POCO BlogPost class I have:
public virtual ICollection<Tag> Tags {
// getter and setter with the magic FixupCollection
}
private ICollection<Tag> _tags;
I ask for a BlogPost and the related Tags from an instance of the ObjectContext and send it to another layer (View in the MVC application). Later I get back the updated BlogPost with changed properties and changed relationships. For example it had tags "A" "B" and "C", and the new tags are "C" and "D". In my particular example there are no new Tags and the properties of the Tags never change, so the only thing which should be saved is the changed relationships. Now I need to save this in another ObjectContext. (Update: Now I tried to do in the same context instance and also failed.)
The problem: I can't make it save the relationships properly. I tried everything I found:
Controller.UpdateModel and Controller.TryUpdateModel don't work.
Getting the old BlogPost from the context then modifying the collection doesn't work. (with different methods from the next point)
This probably would work, but I hope this is just a workaround, not the solution :(.
Tried Attach/Add/ChangeObjectState functions for BlogPost and/or Tags in every possible combinations. Failed.
This looks like what I need, but it doesn't work (I tried to fix it, but can't for my problem).
Tried ChangeState/Add/Attach/... the relationship objects of the context. Failed.
"Doesn't work" means in most cases that I worked on the given "solution" until it produces no errors and saves at least the properties of BlogPost. What happens with the relationships varies: usually Tags are added again to the Tag table with new PKs and the saved BlogPost references those and not the original ones. Of course the returned Tags have PKs, and before the save/update methods I check the PKs and they are equal to the ones in the database so probably EF thinks that they are new objects and those PKs are the temp ones.
A problem I know about and might make it impossible to find an automated simple solution: When a POCO object's collection is changed, that should happen by the above mentioned virtual collection property, because then the FixupCollection trick will update the reverse references on the other end of the many-to-many relationship. However when a View "returns" an updated BlogPost object, that didn't happen. This means that maybe there is no simple solution to my problem, but that would make me very sad and I would hate the EF4-POCO-MVC triumph :(. Also that would mean that EF can't do this in the MVC environment whichever EF4 object types are used :(. I think the snapshot based change tracking should find out that the changed BlogPost has relationships to Tags with existing PKs.
Btw: I think the same problem happens with one-to-many relations (google and my colleague say so). I will give it a try at home, but even if that works that doesn't help me in my six many-to-many relationships in my app :(.
Let's try it this way:
Attach BlogPost to context. After attaching object to context the state of the object, all related objects and all relations is set to Unchanged.
Use context.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState to set your BlogPost to Modified
Iterate through Tag collection
Use context.ObjectStateManager.ChangeRelationshipState to set state for relation between current Tag and BlogPost.
SaveChanges
Edit:
I guess one of my comments gave you false hope that EF will do the merge for you. I played a lot with this problem and my conclusion says EF will not do this for you. I think you have also found my question on MSDN. In reality there is plenty of such questions on the Internet. The problem is that it is not clearly stated how to deal with this scenario. So lets have a look on the problem:
Problem background
EF needs to track changes on entities so that persistance knows which records have to be updated, inserted or deleted. The problem is that it is ObjectContext responsibility to track changes. ObjectContext is able to track changes only for attached entities. Entities which are created outside the ObjectContext are not tracked at all.
Problem description
Based on above description we can clearly state that EF is more suitable for connected scenarios where entity is always attached to context - typical for WinForm application. Web applications requires disconnected scenario where context is closed after request processing and entity content is passed as HTTP response to the client. Next HTTP request provides modified content of the entity which has to be recreated, attached to new context and persisted. Recreation usually happends outside of the context scope (layered architecture with persistance ignorace).
Solution
So how to deal with such disconnected scenario? When using POCO classes we have 3 ways to deal with change tracking:
Snapshot - requires same context = useless for disconnected scenario
Dynamic tracking proxies - requires same context = useless for disconnected scenario
Manual synchronization.
Manual synchronization on single entity is easy task. You just need to attach entity and call AddObject for inserting, DeleteObject for deleting or set state in ObjectStateManager to Modified for updating. The real pain comes when you have to deal with object graph instead of single entity. This pain is even worse when you have to deal with independent associations (those that don't use Foreign Key property) and many to many relations. In that case you have to manually synchronize each entity in object graph but also each relation in object graph.
Manual synchronization is proposed as solution by MSDN documentation: Attaching and Detaching objects says:
Objects are attached to the object
context in an Unchanged state. If you
need to change the state of an object
or the relationship because you know
that your object was modified in
detached state, use one of the
following methods.
Mentioned methods are ChangeObjectState and ChangeRelationshipState of ObjectStateManager = manual change tracking. Similar proposal is in other MSDN documentation article: Defining and Managing Relationships says:
If you are working with disconnected
objects you must manually manage the
synchronization.
Moreover there is blog post related to EF v1 which criticise exactly this behavior of EF.
Reason for solution
EF has many "helpful" operations and settings like Refresh, Load, ApplyCurrentValues, ApplyOriginalValues, MergeOption etc. But by my investigation all these features work only for single entity and affects only scalar preperties (= not navigation properties and relations). I rather not test this methods with complex types nested in entity.
Other proposed solution
Instead of real Merge functionality EF team provides something called Self Tracking Entities (STE) which don't solve the problem. First of all STE works only if same instance is used for whole processing. In web application it is not the case unless you store instance in view state or session. Due to that I'm very unhappy from using EF and I'm going to check features of NHibernate. First observation says that NHibernate perhaps has such functionality.
Conclusion
I will end up this assumptions with single link to another related question on MSDN forum. Check Zeeshan Hirani's answer. He is author of Entity Framework 4.0 Recipes. If he says that automatic merge of object graphs is not supported, I believe him.
But still there is possibility that I'm completely wrong and some automatic merge functionality exists in EF.
Edit 2:
As you can see this was already added to MS Connect as suggestion in 2007. MS has closed it as something to be done in next version but actually nothing had been done to improve this gap except STE.
I have a solution to the problem that was described above by Ladislav. I have created an extension method for the DbContext which will automatically perform the add/update/delete's based on a diff of the provided graph and persisted graph.
At present using the Entity Framework you will need to perform the updates of the contacts manually, check if each contact is new and add, check if updated and edit, check if removed then delete it from the database. Once you have to do this for a few different aggregates in a large system you start to realize there must be a better, more generic way.
Please take a look and see if it can help http://refactorthis.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/introducing-graphdiff-for-entity-framework-code-first-allowing-automated-updates-of-a-graph-of-detached-entities/
You can go straight to the code here https://github.com/refactorthis/GraphDiff
I know it's late for the OP but since this is a very common issue I posted this in case it serves someone else.
I've been toying around with this issue and I think I got a fairly simple solution,
what I do is:
Save main object (Blogs for example) by setting its state to Modified.
Query the database for the updated object including the collections I need to update.
Query and convert .ToList() the entities I want my collection to include.
Update the main object's collection(s) to the List I got from step 3.
SaveChanges();
In the following example "dataobj" and "_categories" are the parameters received by my controller "dataobj" is my main object, and "_categories" is an IEnumerable containing the IDs of the categories the user selected in the view.
db.Entry(dataobj).State = EntityState.Modified;
db.SaveChanges();
dataobj = db.ServiceTypes.Include(x => x.Categories).Single(x => x.Id == dataobj.Id);
var it = _categories != null ? db.Categories.Where(x => _categories.Contains(x.Id)).ToList() : null;
dataobj.Categories = it;
db.SaveChanges();
It even works for multiple relations
The Entity Framework team is aware that this is a usability issue and plans to address it post-EF6.
From the Entity Framework team:
This is a usability issue that we are aware of and is something we have been thinking about and plan to do more work on post-EF6. I have created this work item to track the issue: http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/864 The work item also contains a link to the user voice item for this--I encourage you to vote for it if you have not done so already.
If this impacts you, vote for the feature at
http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/864
All of the answers were great to explain the problem, but none of them really solved the problem for me.
I found that if I didn't use the relationship in the parent entity but just added and removed the child entities everything worked just fine.
Sorry for the VB but that is what the project I am working in is written in.
The parent entity "Report" has a one to many relationship to "ReportRole" and has the property "ReportRoles". The new roles are passed in by a comma separated string from an Ajax call.
The first line will remove all the child entities, and if I used "report.ReportRoles.Remove(f)" instead of the "db.ReportRoles.Remove(f)" I would get the error.
report.ReportRoles.ToList.ForEach(Function(f) db.ReportRoles.Remove(f))
Dim newRoles = If(String.IsNullOrEmpty(model.RolesString), New String() {}, model.RolesString.Split(","))
newRoles.ToList.ForEach(Function(f) db.ReportRoles.Add(New ReportRole With {.ReportId = report.Id, .AspNetRoleId = f}))