We would like to create a history table for each of our entities.
Is there a way to have entity framework create the history entities/tables automatically, given the existing entities?
For example, the Customer entity would have a shadow history table called CustomerHistory. Whenever there is an edit or a delete, the old record will be inserted into the history table. The main entity table will always contain the current record.
Since we have several entities, I would rather not have to create a separate history entity and repository for each entity, thus doubling the entities.
We would like to do this for all of our entities in order to track transactional and state temporal changes to the entities.
We use the unit of work and repository patterns.
Assume that the properties of the Entity and the EntityHistory objects would be the same, although we may want to extend the history object with some datetime properties.
I understand how to override DbContext.SaveChanges in order to write to history/audit tables.
What I want to avoid doing is having to create duplicate history entities/repositories for every entity that we have.
I am currently exploring doing something in OnModelCreating to create a history entity for each entity but have not found a good example.
Any ideas?
Related
Looking to see if there is a way to filter out logical/soft deleted entities by default, but also is overridable so that I can fetch all entities as needed?
I have EntityA which has a navigation property to EntityB. In the frontend it's possible to create a new EntityA and append it to EntityB. If I now try to save the new created EntityA, Breeze also want's to save the changes on EntityB (containing the new ID of the newly created EntityA). Is it somehow possible to avoid having EntityB, because in this specific use case it should be possible to append new entities to EntityB, but these should not be saved back (and also not be reported as pending changes)?
I see the possibility with using two EntityManagers, but this would mean that I can no longer have navigation properties between the two types.
Pascal is asking an important question: are Entity A and Entity B related one-to-one? More to the point are they related one-to-one such that A depends on B (i.e. A is a child of B)?
A typical relationship of this sort is the "extension" entity. Consider "Order" and "OrderExtension". "OrderExtension" is a bolt-on type with optional fields that "extend" the core order data. An order can have zero or one "OrderExtension" records.
Order is the parent in this example; it SHOULD NOT have a FK reference to the OrderExtension. The OrderExtension is the child and it SHOULD HAVE a required OrderID FK field. The parent Order can exist without a child, but the child OrderExtension cannot exist w/o the parent.
At least that's how I think it should be. I've often seen folks turn this around. They give the Order an OrderExtensionID FK field which is optional. The OrderExtension has no backpointer to the Order.
The weakness of this design is that it allows you to create multiple orphaned OrderExtension entities that don't belong to anything ... and you'll rarely know they are there.
I'm betting that's your situation. I'm betting that Entity B is like OrderExtension and Entity A is like Order. When you created the OrderExtension (B) and associated it with an Order (A), Breeze tried to maintain that relationship for you by updating the Order.OrderExtensionID property. That puts Order (A) in a modified state.
DO not proceed until you've figured this out. While Jeremy is correct that you can save one entity by cherry picking the pending changes - you can save B without saving A -, you risk breaking the integrity of your data!
From a modeling perspective you've made Entity A dependent on Entity B. If you don't save A at the same time you save B, there will be no way for someone using the database to know that the two are related.
Next time you query for either of them, neither you nor Breeze will know they are related. You will be unable to navigate between A and B. I'm pretty sure that's not what you had in mind.
You can pass an array containing the entities you wish to save to the saveChanges method to restrict which entities are saved.
From the breeze docs:
saveChanges ( [entities] [saveOptions] [callback] [errorCallback] ) async
Saves either a list of specified entities or all changed entities
within this EntityManager. If there are no changes to any of the
entities specified then there will be no server side call made but a
valid 'empty' saveResult will still be returned.
Parameters:
[entities] Array of Entity optional The list of entities to save.
Every entity in that list will be sent to the server, whether changed
or unchanged, as long as it is attached to this EntityManager. If this
parameter is omitted, null or empty (the usual case), every entity
with pending changes in this EntityManager will be saved.
I do have some JSON file http://jsonblob.com/530664b3e4b0237f7f82bdfa I am pulling from forecast.io.
I am little confused how I should be creating my CoreData entities and relationships.
In below setup, I made my Location entity as the parent entity and created a separate entity for Currently, Minutely, Hourly, Daily. However I have decided it's best to hold all the information regarding the weather data in one entity, so I created a Data table for that purpose and tied it to Daily and Currently in the image below.
Before going further, I paused and would like to get a second opinion on it. Is this a valid way of going forward with this?
EDIT: Based on Wain's response I changed my model to this
Currently Minutely and Hourly add little value as they don't have any attributes or relationships. It's also generally easier to add a type attribute rather than having a number of sub entities because you can easily filter the type using a predicate while doing a fetch. If you're going to add more in the future then there could be a case for keeping sub entities.
Once the entities are trimmed down then you only have a Location and Data with a relationship. You should make that relationship bi-directional so that Core Data can manage the data store contents better. (this applies to all relationships, even if you keep the sub entities you already have).
Other than that, fine :-)
I am working with Silverlight application with MVVM Concept and Entity framework and having some trouble in inserting the values. Using SubmitChanges method to update, insert, or delete data.
All of the pending changes are submitted in one operation.
Is it possible to use SubmitChanges method twice in one process?
Because I have below requirement:
In First step am inserting data into Table B.
Second step am inserting data into Table A. Here Table A has FK relation to Table B. That's why I am inserting data(Table B) in first step only.
But problem is: submitChange method insert all pending changes at once.
I need to submit the data twice in one process.
Entity Framework will handle the inserts correctly only if you setup the relationships correctly. You do not have to worry about the sequence of the inserts. Entity Framework will sort that out automatically. As a test, open a new diagram of your database and you should see a one to one or one to many relationship between TableA and TableB. If you do not see this relationship, EF will not know how to do the inserts.
Entity Framework will infer the sequence. If you check your object just before the context inserts the record, you should see zero's in the identity columns of both Parent and Child objects. EF will hydrate these properties with the identity values once the record(s) have been inserted.
I have a MySQL database and would like to have a similar structure in Core Data. I am very new with using Core Data with Xcode. I have a few fundamental questions if I am doing the right thing.
My Mysql DB looks similar to this:
table.caveconditions
visibilityID
percolationID
xxxx
table.visibility
visibilityID
visibilityValue
...and so on. I would then connect the tables using JOINS
Now, I have done the Core Data modeling like this but I am not quite sure if this is the right approach.
Would be great if someone of you could tell me if this is the right way to do it. In the end I would like to use JSON strings to dump the mysql table into core data.
Thanks a lot
Chris
I have created the new schema. Is this right?
It looks good except for all the "xxxID" attributes e.g. caveID. You also need to follow the naming conventions.
You have the same attribute names with (presumably) the same values in two or more entities. This is necessary in SQL for joins but in Core Data, this is handled by objects and relationships.
Each object in Core Data is automatically universally unique. This means when you create a relationship from one object to another, that relationship concrete identifies on specific unique object.
This means you only need an attribute like caveID in the actual entity that caveID designates which in this case is (presumably) the Caves entity. You don't need the attribute in the CavesConditions entity or any other entity that has a relationship to the "Caves" entity.
(If the xxxID were just artifacts of SQL, you don't actually need them at in Core Data unless some external database your app interacts with requires them.)
A good rule of thumb to use is that any particular value should show up on only one side of a relationship and, ideally, only once in the entire data model.
Naming conventions are a little different than SQL. A Core Data entity isn't a table. An entity is more akin to a class. Each entity is supposed to describe a single instance of a managed object. How many of those instances end up in the object graph is irrelevant. Therefore, entity names are singular.
In this case, Caves should be Cave, Countries should be Country and so on.
Relationships are named after the entity they target. It is not immediate obvious but each reciprocal relationship (the default) on the visual data model editor is actually two relationships because there is one relationship description for each side. Each side has the name of the entity targeted. By convention to-one relationships have a singular name and a to-many relationship has a plural name.
So:
Caves.relConditions<-->>CaveConditons.getCave
...would become
Cave.conditons<-->>CaveConditon.cave
The naming conventions are important because Objective-C uses conventions names to generate and search for accessor methods.
CoreData is NOT a database. Remodel your data as simply as you can and in a way that suits how it will be used in your application and do not think about joins or structure based optimization. You do not have control over the backing schema of a CoreData object model. This is the hardest concept you must get over when starting to use CoreData, but once you do, you will be better off.