I have an entity/table that uses sqlgeography.
Since EF 4.X doesn't support spatial types I'm instead sending the bytes of the field back and forth.
I have stored procs on the database side that handles the converstion and properties on the code side to do that job.
To add the properties in the code I used a partial class.
One of those properties is for the SqlGeography which simply wraps around the byte[] property to handle getting and setting.
This property is hidden from EF using the NotMappedAttribute.
The other is the property exposing the byte[] itself and is decorated with the EdmScalarPropertyAttribute and DataMemberAttribute.
I then go to the EF model designer (*.edmx) to point the entity model at the Insert/Update/Delete stored procs.
It finds the stored procs alright and realises that they (when appropriate) take a VARBINARY parameter.
It also has a drop down allowing you to select a property on the entity class which maps to that parameter.
However this drop down doesn't list either of my properties. I don't care about the SqlGeography property since that is meant to be hidden from EF, however it is vital for me to be able to point it at the byte[] property, as that is where the data comes from.
I would very much like to avoid database triggers or wrapper classes and addiitonal fields to fudge this in to working.
I tried manually editing the .edmx file to include the byte[] property, but then it just complains it's unmapped.
Can anyone give me some insight in to how to get this to work? Or an alternative method of achiving the end result?
We could use a view to create the binary field for us, but this then involves manually creating a lot of the xml for the relationships within the data.
This pretty much voids the point of using EF which is to make life simple and easy.
For this project We'll just add a binary field to the table then have sprocs to handle the converstion on the server and a property in a partial entity class for exposing the geography type in the model.
Next project I doubt we'll be using EF. Dapper is so much more painless, even if theres a touch more code writing involved.
Here's the links for using views if anyone thinks it would be applicable to them:
http://thedatafarm.com/blog/data-access/yes-you-can-read-and-probably-write-spatial-data-with-entity-framework/
http://smehrozalam.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/entity-framework-creating-a-model-using-views-instead-of-tables/
In the end we created a computed column for each table that exposes the spatial data as bytes.
We then use stored procs for inserting and updating the spatial data.
Related
I understand the fact that generating a model based on the DataBaseFirst method woill produce a collection of entitites on the ORM that are essentially mapped to the DB tables.
It is my understanding, that if you need properties from other entities or just dropdownlist fields, you can make a ViewModel and use that class as your model.
I have an AppDev course that I just finished and the author wrote something that if I understand it correctly, he is referring to change the ORM entities to fit what your ViewModels would look like, hence, no need for ViewModels. However, if you do this, and regenerate the ORM from the database, those new entities that you placed as "ViewModels" would be gone. If you changed the ORM to update the database, then your database structure in SQL Server would be "undone".
Please inform me if my understanding is correct that I simply need to use a ViewModel in a separate folder to gather specific classes and or properties in a superclass or a single class with the properties that I just need and use that as my model....
Here is the excerpt from the author:
EntityFramework is initially a one to one mapping of classes to tables, but you can create a model that better represents the entities in your application no matter how the data is stored in relational tables.
What I think the author may have been hinting at is the concept of complex models. Let's say, for instance, that in your Database you have a Customer Table and an Address Table. A one to one mapping would create 2 model items, one Customer class and one Address class. Using complex model mapping, you could instead create a single Customer class which contained the columns from both the Customer Table and the Address table. Thus, instead of Customer.Address.Street1 you could refer simply to Customer.Street1. This is only one of many cases where you could represent a conceptual model in code differently than the resulting data in storage. Check out the excellent blog series Inheritance with EF CodeFirst for examples of different mapping strategies, like Table Per Hierarchy (TPH), Table Per Type (TPT), Table Per Concrete Class (TPC). Note that even though these examples are CodeFirst, they still apply to Entity Framework even if the initial models are generated from a Database.
In general, if you use DatabaseFirst and then never modify the resulting entities, you will always have a class in code for each table in the database. However, the power of Enity Framework is that it allows you to more efficiently work with your entities by allowing these hybrid mappings, thus freeing you to think about your code without the extra burden of your classes having to abide by rigid SQL expectations.
Edit
When the Database-First or Model-First entities are generated, they are purposely generated as partial classes. You can create your own partials which extend the classes that are generated from Entity Framework without modifying the existing class files. If the models are re-generated, your partial classes will still be intact. Granted, using partials means that you have the Entity Framework default behaviors as well as your extended behaviors, but this isn't usually a huge issue.
Another option is that you can modify the TT files which Entity Framework uses to generate your models, ensuring that your models are always regenerated in the same state.
Ultimately, the main idea is that just because the default behavior of Entity Framework is to map the database to classes 1:1, there are other options and you are never forced into something that isn't efficient for your project.
I'm new to Core Data and I got stuck at this part of my xCode project.
I have created a core data entity "Person" and this entity has the following attributes:
name;
age;
birthday;
address;
and this attributes are getting displayed in a tableview. So far so good.
My problem is that I want the table to have an "Add Field" or "Add Row" cell so when the user wants to add more information in addition to these already created attributes he just clicks the cell and chooses the field name and type.
For example if he wants the person's "phone number" in the detail view of the table he names the new field "phone number" and chooses its type "number". Then he has an extra field where he can add the person's phone number.
How can I do this in core data? Is there a way for a user to manually add a new attribute to an entity and choosing its format? What is the best approach? Thanks.
You can't do exactly what you want with Core Data. Core Data can't change structure except if you make a new version of your design, but you do that in xcode.
But you can easily add another table called f.ex. information, which links to the person single connection and has the person linking back many to the information table.
This way, you can add as many fields and values as you want, of course all the extra fields you add would follow the same person, so if you want to use cellPhone field, you must add that to all.
I would recommend that you use direct SQL, and don't use Core Data. Core Data is not a database, it is an object store, and when you get better at iOS development, you will understand the difference, it is much bigger than you might think at first.
There is an excellent high level library for SQLite, called FMDB, you can find it on github here : https://github.com/ccgus/fmdb
Here you can do direct SQL queries like "Alter Table" and more on the fly, though what you are after isn't very simple, it could be real fun project to do.
Good luck with this.
I don't think this is directly possible in Core Data because its purpose is object persistence and you can't add new properties to objects dynamically. It could be faked to some degree using a to-many relationship to an "extra property" entity that had name, value (as string), and data type fields.
I believe your best option would be using SQLite in order to modify the table structure on the fly. (http://www.sqlite.org/lang_altertable.html)
My last company did something like this, but its not trivial. I don't have access to the code so this is more or less going to be from memory.
you provide transformable property in your entity (which will be a dictionary)
the model object has to provide the getter and setter for this that in turn drive the primitive methods to set/get an attribute
you provide a getter/setter along the lines of -objectForKey and -setObject forKey, which read and write values
when you are told to 'fault', you update the dictionary in the entity
In summary, maintain a dictionary of key value pairs. Perhaps you maintain a shadow dictionary that gets initialized and updated as needed. Its been around 4 years since I last saw this code so a little fuzzy on it. But you should get the idea. It was like magic - you can arbitrarily set any key/value pair (assuming string keys and NSCoding compliant values), and can always ask for the keys by asking the dictionary for its current set of keys.
I have an entity (Org) in my Entity Framework that has a foreign key with a table that is in another database (BusinessUnit). We need the foreign key to get the description of the BusinessUnit linked with the Org. In the past (old project without Entity Framework) we were using a stored procedure to return all the information about this entity, including the BusinessUnit description, using a join. So now my problem is how to display the same information than before using Entity Framework.
I've tried, once I load my Org entity from database, to make a loop accessing to BusinessUnit to get the description for each Org, but this is too slow. My other idea was use a store procedure, but I need an extra field on my entity and Entity Frameworks gives me an 3004 error: No mapping specified for my property. I was thinking to use a complex type, but I'm not sure if it's what I need keeping in mind I have to add just a field to my entity. In that case, could I use the complex type just for "select" operations and keep my original entity for the rest of CRUD operations?
How should I proceed?
Thanks.
EF is not able to execute queries across multiple databases. If you need to perform such query you must either use database view and map the view as a new entity (it will be readonly - making it updatable requires mapping insert, update and delete stored procedures) or divide your data querying into two separate parts to load data from both databases. Divided querying can either use two contexts or you can get data from the second database using stored procedure.
The reason why you got the error is that you added the property in EDMX. EDMX can contain only properties mapped to your first database. EDMX generates entity code as partial classes If you need property manually populated from the second database you have to create your partial part (partial class) for entity and add the property in code.
I am bootstrapping myself through my very first ASP MVC project, and could use some suggestions regarding the most appropriate (data-side) model binding solution I should pursue. The project is 'small', which really just means I have very limited time for chasing down dead-ends, which cramps my available learning curve. Thanks heaps for reading!
Background: a simple address search app (ASP.NET MVC 3) that sends user form input to a vendor-sourced server, and presents the results returned from the server in a rules-driven format. There is no CRUD-style repository as such; this is an entirely read-only application. The vendor's .NET server API specifies the use DataTable objects (System.Data.DataTable) for both requests and replies.
Currently: I have a prototype under construction to validate server behavior and inform the application's design. There is a conventional MVC data model class for the input form which works great, auto-binding with the view just as you'd expect. When submitted, the controller passes this input model to my vendor API wrapper, which is currently binding to the request table medieval-style:
public DataTable GetGlobalCandidateAddresses(AddressInputModel input)
{
...
DataRow newRow = dataTable.NewRow();
newRow[0] = input.AddressLine1;
newRow[1] = input.AddressLine2;
newRow[2] = input.AddressLine3;
...
dataTable.Rows.Add(newRow);
...
This works fine; the inputs are fixed and have very light validation requirements. However, if there is a modern framework solution for quickly reflecting a DataTable from my model, that would be peachy.
My real conundrum, however, is on the reply. The table returned by the server contains a variable column-set, with any combination of at least 32 possible unordered fields on a per-transaction basis. Some of the column names contain compiler-invalid characters ("status.description") that won't map literally to a model property name. I will also have a need to dynamically map or combine some of the reply fields in the view model, based on a series of rules (address formats vary considerably by country), so not all fields are 1-to-1.
Just to get the prototype fired up and running, I am currently passing the reply DataTable instance all the way back to a strongly-typed view, which spins it out into the display exactly as is. This is nice for quickly validating the server replies, but is not sufficient for the real app (much less satisfying best practices!).
Question: what is my best tooling approach for binding DataTable rows and columns into a proper model class for display in a view, including some custom binding rules, where no underlying database is present?
Virtually all of the training materials I am consuming discuss classic database repository scenarios. The OnModelCreating override available in the Entity Framework seems ideal in some respects, but can you use a DBContext without a DB connection or schema?
If I have to roll my own model binder, are there any tricks I should consider? I've been away from .NET for a while (mostly Java & SQL), so I'm picking up LINQ as I go as well as MVC.
Thanks again for your attention!
Create a poco display model AddressDisplay and do custom object mapping from the data table to the display model. You can use data annotations for formatting but you can also do that in your custom mapping. You shouldn't need to create a custom model binder.
So create two poco models, AddressInput and AddressDisplay, you can use data annotations on AddressInput for validation. When AddressInput is posted back, map it to the outbound data table. When the response is received, map the inbound data table to AddressDisplay and return the view to the user.
I'm working on creating an Entity Framework model for our database tables, and for the most part, things are going pretty well. However, I'm running into a bit of an issue mapping the stored procedures. See, the homebuilt ORM that our company has been using tends to use one sproc for inserting and updating, and differentiats the operations by passing a bit valued parameter called #IsInsert (I know, don't get me started). Entity Framework seems to expect separate sprocs for inserting and updating, so I figure that all I have to do is tell EF "pass true for this parameter when you're using it as an insert, false if it's an update". However, at least according to the designer UI, it doesn't seem to give me the option for any mapping other than fields on the entity object. Is there a way to pass a constant value (boolean true or false) to a sproc mapping in EF4?
Your best bet may be to use context.executestorequery(query) and keep it how it was before.