First of all, I only want one database, not an extra silly little thing for credentials. I have read that this provider uses the UserProfiles table to store login credentials. I would like to use my Occupant table, and not have to link the two. Is this possible, and how do I do it?
If it must be UserProfile, could I perhaps inherit Occupant from that using EF inheritence features, so the provider sees only a UserProfile interface on my Occupant table?
You can change the name of the table to use in the WebSecurity.InitializeDatabaseConnection method. There is a parameter in this method called userTableName. If you have a different name for the user name column in the Occupant table then you would also specify that in the parameter userNameColumn. Also the identification column name used in your table would be specified in userIdColumn. There are techniques for including the SimpleMembership database with your your own database and the details depend upon if you are using the code-first or database-first approach. Out of the box SimpleMembership is code-first.
Related
I have one master & detail in my 'db1' and there is one column named 'EntryByUserId' in master table.
User table is available in 'db2'.
When all the tables are available in one single database we can directly get user detail by using include function. But here my reference table is in another database so in my case user object will return null value. So anyone please help me to achieve this.
I have created multiple dbcontext in my project but don't know how to get this.
Below is the code we use when all tables are available in single database.
dbcontext1.tbl_Master.Include(m => m.tbl_Detail).Include(m => m.tbl_user)
.AsNoTracking().FirstOrDefault();
One option to accommodate this cleanly, especially for something as frequently accessed as a "User" reference for something like reporting on CreatedBy or ModifiedBy tracking on rows would be to implement a view within Db2 that lists the users from Db1. Then in your main application context you can map a User entity to the view rather than a table. I would put guards in your DbContext and entities to discourage/prevent modifications to this User entity, and leave maintenance of users to a DbContext overseeing the Db1 tables.
If this is something like a multi-tenant system with a system database for authentication and separate DBs per tenant which are tracking things like CreatedBy against records, I would recommend considering a system to inspect and replicate users between the auth database and the respective tenant databases. The reason for this would be to help enforce referential integrity for the data and the user references. The issue with the view approach is that there is no constraint available to ensure that a UserId reference actually corresponds with a row in the Users table over in the other database. It can be indexed, but not constrained so you have to handle the possibility of invalid data.
Asp.net mvc 5 Identity 2.0 will create 5 tables automatically when run the mvc project.
Here, my question is why some tables like AspnetUser, it's item 'Id' type defined to string.
The String seems like GUID, but why it doesn't define to guid type instead of using string.
Is it transfer data type from string or do something when quering data ?
I can't figure out why it define to string, but look like guid ?
another table have same problem like AspnetRole, it's item 'UserId', 'RoleId' defined to string too.
Have any idea ?
I'm guessing this is having different reasons.
One reason is the insert performance for Guids, which will get slower and slower after an amount of data (Clustered indexes).
Another reason is the difference of handling Guid in different databases. Microsoft Sql Server has an UniqueIdentifier type that is a Guid, MySql will store them as strings, Oracle stores the raw bytes of a Guid...
I hope this explains a part of your queustion, as not fully :)...
Identity framework not only created for code first approach to be generate database tables with given fields or datatypes. Identity framework can be used against existing database or migrate old asp.net membership provider, or we can use our own table names with extra database fields to store more data on identity tables.
Further more, the Id of the aspnetUser table (that is the User table) used as string because, we can use Guid, integer, long etc. for this field depending on the requirement.
E.g. : If you decided to use integer as Id of the aspnetUser table (User table), then the database field will be auto increment int (or bigInt or etc.) field. But you need to do model binding in order to fulfill entity framework migration requirements.
By default we get Guid inserted into this field when we use out of the box asp.net Identity framework.
When you have defined roles for the registered user, there will be record added into AspnetRole table, this is also completely depending on the fields we defined on the tables as I discussed before. If we decided to use integer as Id of the aspnetUser table, then AspnetRole table fields updated according to the relationship with aspnetUser table fields.
Hope this helps.
i want to change datatype at UserId column in UserProfile table of simplemembership provider in my MVC 4 web application. because currently INT datatype is too small to store users so i want to change with LONG (bigint) datatype.
is it possible to do it ?
The schema for the SimpleMembershipProvider tables is fixed and you cannot change that. You will have to write a custom memberhsip provider.
But if you're gonna need to handle more than 2,147,483,647 (2.1 Billion users) in your system, the SimpleMembership provider is probably the last thing you're gonna have to consider as an option for this huge amount of data. So writing a custom membership provider is probably something you might need to consider anyway if you will be dealing with those kind of figures.
I have a table (say, 'MyTable') created using CF. Also, there's asp's Membership table in my DB, which was auto generated along with Users, UserInRoles and Roles tables. These table exist only in the DB, and not as a model (class) in the project.
Now, I need to set a foreign key in 'MyTable' to Membership table. The problem is, of course, that there is no 'Membership' class in my project so I can't set that FK with code first.
I'd like to keep my users management in the trustful hands of asp.net, so I don't want to create my own tables for this.
How can I set that FK using code first?
I have asp.net membership and I use the built in Create user method since it is convenient now after this depending on the user I want to add 2 more fields to the aspnet_UserTable.
In my aspnet_user Table I have like this
// All Standard Fields that come with this table
ClubID<nullable)
ClubName <nullable)
I have a table that relates this
Club Table
ClubID<PK>
ClubName
So this relationship forms that one club can have many users. But one user can only have 1 club.
So now I been trying to figure out how to add the ClubID to the aspnet Usertable since it does not show up in the Entity Framework Diagram since it does not show FK.
// Note in this case I am just using EF made to create but in reality I will use the Membership.Create.
aspnet_Users test = aspnet_Users.Createaspnet_Users(Guid.NewGuid(), Guid.NewGuid(), "myTest5", "mytest5", false, DateTime.Now);
test.Club = Club.CreateClub("One224", "Two224");
test.ClubName = "go";
MyEntities.AddToaspnet_Users(test);
MyrEntities.SaveChanges();
So what I have works but it just makes no sense and I hope there is a better way. Like I try to create the club and then stick it in the test.club.
This add's the ClubID primary key but does not add the clubName.
So then I have to add the club name separately. Like why? Is there not a better way?
I also prefer linq method syntax so if it is needed and you know this syntax can you please write it in that.
I would recommend a few things.
One: Strongly consider not adding columns to the aspnet_* tables. If you ever want to change your authentication method down the road you'll be stuck lugging those tables around with you even though you won't need them anymore. Also, there may be a new, better version of the membership provider one day that you won't be able to upgrade because you have customized the membership schema.
Two: Instead, why not create a new table called User (or something of your liking) that has your own primary key but links back to the ASP.NET Membership unique key (the guid).
Your table might look like
User
UserId (PK)
AuthenticationUserId (FK back to aspnet_User table)
ClubId (FK back to your club table)
Three: I don't understand why you've repeated ClubName both in your user table and in your Club table. You really only need to define the ClubName once, right? Keep your Club table how it is but remove the ClubName column from the user table.
Your code above for associating the club with the user is correct and works because that's how the Entity Framework works. You're associating entities with each other and are abstracted from some of the relational aspects of your data schema. It's a little strange to get used to it first but it does work.