I want to create a entity model from the existing database but all the table names contain "_"/underscore in the database so while creating poco classes i want remove underscore from name of the entities/poco classes. Is there a way to change the naming convention while the entities are created in the entity framework during the creation of model from database
Thanks,
Amit
You have two options,
There is a little bit of a learning curve but it involves using T4 templates to do the code generation yourself. Basically you would just strip out the _ in the conceptual model. guide to customizing entity classes
Easier, and a little more painful is to just import your model and then use the model explorer and rename each entity. You will only have to do this once, it will save the mapping from conceptual to physical. A walk through can be found here (search for "Changing an entity name")
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 am currently developing project using C# MVC and entity framework, I want to use the entity framework in other modules ,
i.e security module , Utility module ,
i want to call the db using the entity frame work, how do i do this ?
i am new to this are please explain in detail, idea is to break the project into presentation layer, business layer and data access layer..
i don't know how to archive this.
Try this way,
There are three ways to work around entity framework, Database First, Model First & Code First.
Database First: If you already have database, then entity framework can generate a data model that consists of classes & properties that correspond to existing database objects such as tables & columns.
The information of database structure, conceptual data model & mapping between them is store in the xml in an .edmx file.
Model First: If you don't have database, you can start creating model using vs entity framework designer. This approach also use the .edmx file.
Code First: In this approach, we don't need .edmx file. Mapping between store schema & conceptual data model is represented by code, handled by code convention & special mapping API.
Here I have used the Database First approach.
In order to use the Dal class lib, add the reference in the business logic layer and initialize the entities class. For example
Find the entity framework object.
Initialize the entity framework object in other class lib.
FrameworkEntities entities = new FrameworkEntities();
Please let me know, if you want to use model first or code first approach.
Get started from the below link for the Entity Frame Work
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/data/ee712907?
First of all I want to ask that what is the difference between Entity Class and our Model Class ?
And when I use to add Data Annotations on the Entity Classes generated by the Entity Framework in Database approach, it's vanished upon every "Update From Database", and for this user defined Model Classes can be used but I have no idea to use them with the generated Entity Classes.
An entity class is a class that directly associate's with a real object and is linked to business logic and holding information about the system. Entities are usually used to establish a mapping between an object and to a table in the database.
Models are simply classes that are associated with a views and controllers which define or contains the definition of an object and when there has been a change in state. These can hold your data annotations to validate before going up to the Business/Data Access layers...
This leads me on to your next question and if using EF to generate your data model classes using the "database first" approach, then you cannot apply the data annotation attributes directly to your classes. Because the EF Designer generates the model classes, any changes you make to the model classes will get overwritten as you have been experiencing. If you want to use the validators with the classes generated by EF then you need to create meta data classes: http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/gilf/archive/2011/01/20/adding-metadata-to-entities-in-the-data-model.aspx
Hope that helps.
Danny
Ok straight to the issue. I can get object mapping to tables easily with Linq To Sql. For instance: class Product, class Order, class Order_Detail from Northwind. IMO, these 3 object have already met model's meet. But i can't put some useful attr([Required] [HttpPost]) on properties of them(except modifying design.cs, which is not recommended).Do i have to create ProductModels OrderModels with the same properties myself, and maybe some additional DAL-like classes to turn the linq2sql objects to models??
EDIT:
Even if i put design.cs and my models in the same namespace, how can i make two partial classes have the same properties??
Yes, you should create DTO's for each Linq to SQL model, it is not considered a good practice to pass Linq2Sql objects through your layers.
Optionally, look into to using Entity Framework Code First. It is stupid simple to use and you can add validation attributes directly to your POCOs, which are enforced on the data persistence side as well as the presentation side in MVC.
here's a good EF codefirst primer : http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/07/16/code-first-development-with-entity-framework-4.aspx
I am learning code first and I have project to be used with an existing database.
I am a bit confused of what I meant to be doing.I will explain:
Do I need to create an entityconfiguration for each table in my existing database?
Within this EntityConfiguration for each table do I need to create foreign key relationships?
Do I need to do a ToTable for each table in my existing database?
Is there any free tool "codeplex" that pointing to an existing db will generate this codeFirst stuff?
I have seem few blogs about "EF Code first with existing db" but I am not sure or was not clear to me If Need to create this stuff or I will be getting strange errors like "MyColumn_MyColum" basically as if codeFirst is trying to build some FKs or something.
can somebody clarify?
thanks a lot. I know there are few questions but if you can answer 01 or 2 that would be fine.
thanks again
If you want the code to be generated for you use database-first approach with DbContext API. Simply create EDMX file from your database and let DbContext Generator template generate all entities and context for you.
DbContext Fluent API is mainly targeted to the code-first development approach where EF will created database for you from the code you provided. It can be used with existing database but it requires much more skills and understanding of mapping wich EF can provide to you.
Generally:
You don't need to provide EntityConfiguration for each table if you follow some naming conventions (entity name is singular form of table name, all properties have the same name, primary key in table and entity is named as Id or EntityNameId, etc.).
You don't need to define relationships manually if you follow conventions with exposing navigation properties and possibly also foreign key properties. The issue can be naming of many-to-many keys and junction tables.
ToTable is needed only if your entity does not follow naming convention or if you map some advance inheritance or splitting.
EF uses a lot of default conventions which drive how the names should be defined. Conventions can be removed.
You will not do anything wrong if you define EntityConfiguration for each table - it will at least allow you learning what is needed and your mapping will be explicit / self documented.