I've written an ASP.Net MVC 3 application using the Code First paradigm whereby when I make a change to the model the Entity Framework automatically attempts to re-create the underlying SQL Server Database via DROP and CREATE statements. The problem is the application is hosted on a 3rd party remote server which limits the number of databases I can have and does not seem to allow me to programmatically execute "CREATE DATABASE..." statements as I gather from this error message:
CREATE DATABASE permission denied in database 'master'.
Is there any way to stop the Entity Framework from dropping and attempting to re-create the whole database and instead make it simply drop the tables and re-create them?
After creating the database manually and running the application I also get the following error I guess as the Entity Framework tries to modify the database:
Model compatibility cannot be checked because the database does not contain model metadata. Ensure that IncludeMetadataConvention has been added to the DbModelBuilder conventions.
UPDATE: Found this gem through google, it sounds like its exactly what you need: http://nuget.org/Tags/IDatabaseInitializer
You can use a different database initializer. Lets say your context is called SampleContext then your constructor would look like this:
public SampleContext()
{
System.Data.Entity.Database.SetInitializer(new CreateDatabaseIfNotExists<SampleContext>());
}
Note that the above is the default initializer. You will probably need to create your own custom initializer by implementing IDatabaseInitializer. Theres some good info here: http://sankarsan.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/entity-framework-ctp-4-0-database-initialization/
Using EF 4.3 with Migrations you do not get this behavior - at least I have not seen it. But I also have this set in my code -
public sealed class DbConfiguration : DbMigrationsConfiguration<DatabaseContext>
{
public DbConfiguration()
{
AutomaticMigrationsEnabled = false;
}
}
Related
I am developping J2EE application with appfuse that have default settings with mySQL
<!-- Database settings -->
<dbunit.dataTypeFactoryName>org.dbunit.ext.mysql.MySqlDataTypeFactory</dbunit.dataTypeFactoryName>
<dbunit.operation.type>CLEAN_INSERT</dbunit.operation.type>
<hibernate.dialect>org.hibernate.dialect.MySQL5InnoDBDialect</hibernate.dialect>
<jdbc.groupId>mysql</jdbc.groupId>
<jdbc.artifactId>mysql-connector-java</jdbc.artifactId>
<jdbc.version>5.1.27</jdbc.version>
<jdbc.driverClassName>com.mysql.jdbc.Driver</jdbc.driverClassName>
<jdbc.url>jdbc:mysql://localhost/${db.name}?createDatabaseIfNotExist=true&useUnicode=true&characterEncoding=utf-8&autoReconnect=true</jdbc.url>
<jdbc.username>root</jdbc.username>
<jdbc.password></jdbc.password>
<jdbc.validationQuery>SELECT 1 + 1</jdbc.validationQuery>
But i need to connect my application with external database (SQL QERVER)to retreive some data.
I need help to configure maven to use two different database (mysql +sql server)
maven will help you out with loading of the driver jar files. You would be creating two data source / session factory to achieve this.
I think this can be achieved quite easily in a brief guideline as follows:
Create a second "dataSource" bean definition in applicationContext-resources.xml with MSSQL specific values such as driver class, url etc. Give it a different bean id, "dataSourceMSSQL" perhaps. Bind them up to different properties file if you don't want to hard coded property values. For simplicity you can just hard coded it (not recommended). If you chose otherwise, you need to create another properties file to store mssql connection properties, perhaps jdbc-mssql.properties and add it into propertyConfigurer list. This also require you to make changes to your pom file to include custom settings under <!-- Database settings --> section. This can be a bit complicated.
Create another "sessionFactory" bean definition in applicationContext-dao.xml with MSSQL specific values such as hibernate dialect etc. and binds it to "dataSourceMSSQL" as dataSource property ref. Give it a different bean id perhaps, "sessionFactoryMSSQL".
Wire your DAOs which require the new sessionFactory i.e.:
#Autowired private SessionFactory sessionFactoryMSSQL;
Hope that will work for you.
I am working on asp.net mvc with EF code first model. I am trying to apply migrations using EF code first to my project. I am using MySql database. currently i am using EF 4.3.1 version and mysql connector/.net of 6.6.4.0 version. I am successfully add migrations to my project that means i execute series of commands that gave no errors for me. I have followed these steps,
PM> Enable-Migrations
PM> Add-Migration InitialMigration
PM> update-database -verbose
these steps create Migration folder to my project and inside Migration folder it creates configuration and timestamp_Initialmigration files, in configuration file i have added following code.
SetSqlGenerator("MySql.Data.MySqlClient", new MySql.Data.Entity.MySqlMigrationSqlGenerator());
after that i have added one field to my class like,
public int newprop{get; set;}
after that i execute update-database -verbose command in PM console.
when i execute my application it throws an error like,
"Unknown column 'Extent1.newprop' in 'field list'"
please guide me why i am getting this error does i went to the wrong way please guide me.
If your not using automatic migrations
Database.SetInitializer(new MigrateDatabaseToLatestVersion());
public class MyMigrationConfiguration : DbMigrationsConfiguration<MyDbContext>
{
public MyMigrationConfiguration()
{
AutomaticMigrationsEnabled = true; // Are you using this ?????
AutomaticMigrationDataLossAllowed = true;
}
}
Then you need to tell EF using the PM Commandlet to add another migration and update the database.
PM> Enable-Migrations //already done this ?
PM> Add-Migration myLabel
PM> Update-Database
Search for "code based migrations" on web for help
This is a bit late to answer OP... But since it pops up as my first hit on google, ill go ahead anyways :)
The problem here is, that there are a number of restrictions on MySQL as compared to MSSQL.
* In particular with mysql on casesensitive filesystems (linux hosts), table names may not include capitalized letters.
* Also keys are restricted to 767 bytes and should/must be integer types.
* Then there is a problem in parts of the migration generators from Mysql.Data package. For instance when renaming, 'dbo' is not stripped away.
Have a look at this guide on insidemysql.com. It describes how to reconfigure the Aspnet.Identity stack for using int in the TKey typecast.
I have a project where i also have hooked into HistoryContext, allowing to alter structure of __MigrationHistory. It renames and resizes the table/columns. There's also the remake of IdentityConfig - so have a look at
https://github.com/mschr/ASP.NET-MVC5.MySql-Extended-Bootstrap/tree/master/my.ns.entities/DbContexts/MigrationConfig
https://github.com/mschr/ASP.NET-MVC5.MySql-Extended-Bootstrap/tree/master/my.ns.entities/IdentityConfig
Then hook it up with your context (see IdentityDbContext) and enable the mentioned MySqlMigrationScriptGenerator and HistoryContextFactory in your Migrations.Configuration class (see my IdentitiyMigrations.Configuration)
I've finished building my blog using EF and Code First.
EF was running against my local SQL Express instance, with [DBO] schema.
Now i want to publish the blog, and i have done the following :
Generetade the scripts for the tables and all objects from SQL Express and change [dbo] to my [administrator] schema from my server.
Ran the scripts against the server. No issues, all objects were created an populated just fine.
I have modified Webconfig and added my BlogContext connection string to point to the server not local sql express.
Published the site.
The error i am getting is : Invalid object name 'dbo.Articles'. - where Articles is one of my entities. It resides on my sql server, [Administrator].Articles.
As far as i can tell EF still thinks im using the DBO schema. Although i have added the connection string to point to administrator user.
How can i change the schema that EF thinks it should use?
EF will use dbo schema if you didn't configure the schema explicitly through data annotations or fluent API.
[Table("MyTable", "MySchema")]
public class MyEntity
{
}
Or
modelBuidler.Entity<MyEntity>().ToTable("MyTable", "MySchema");
Just for searchers: I am just working with EF5 .NET4.5, and
[Table("MyTable", "MySchema")]
does not work. Even if VS2012 shows there is an overload which takes 2 parameters, on build it gives the error: 'System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.Schema.TableAttribute' does not contain a constructor that takes 2 arguments.
But the code mapping works just fine.
We're running into a small problem deploying a web application to another environment.
We created the application's db using Entity Framework Code First approach (db automatic created from Model).
In this development environment, we are using integrated security and the tables are created under the dbo user. The tables are like
[dbo].[myTable]
For our other environment, we are using username/password authentication for the DB.
We scripted the tables and created them on the DB. So they are now named like
[myDbUser].[myTable]
When running the application, we encounter always the problem
Invalid object name 'dbo.myTable'.
Seems like the code is still trying to look for a dbo table, which is not present and thus fails.
Can anyone shed some light on this problem? Where does Entity Framework gets this dbo prefix from?
Thanks
Specify schema explicitly:
[Table("Users", Schema = "dbo")]
public class User { .. }
Or specify default db schema for your user - 'dbo'
To specify schema in fluent
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
modelBuilder.Entity<ClassName>().ToTable("TableName", "SchemaName");
I ran into this issue recently as well as we support several different schemas with the same model. What I basically came up with was the passing the schema name to the classes/methods that map the model. So for example, EntityTypeConfiguration subclasses take the schema name as a constructor argument, and pass it along with the hard-coded string to ToTable().
See here for a more detailed explanation: https://stackoverflow.com/a/14782001/243607
The environment of my application: web-based, Spring MVC+Security, Hibernate, MySQL(InnoDB)
I am working on a small database application operated from a web interface. There are specific and known users that handle the stored data. Now I need to keep track of every create/update/delete action a user executes on the database and produce simple, "list-like" reports from this. As of now, I am thinking of a "log" table (columns: userId + timestamp + description etc.). I guess an aspect could be fired upon any C(R)UD operation inserting a log row in this table. But I am not sure this is how it should be done.
I am also aware of the usual MySQL logs as well as log4j. As for the logfiles, I might need more information than what is available to MySQL. Log4j might be a solution, but I do not see how it is able to write to MySQL tables. Also, I would like to have some associations preserved in my log table (e.g. the user id) to let the db do the basic filtering etc. Directions on this one appreciated.
What would you recommend? Is there even any built-in support in Hibernate/Spring or is log4j the right way to go?
Thanks!
Log4j is modular, you can write your own backend that writes the log into a database if you wish to do so; in fact, it even comes with a JDBC appender right out of box, although make note of the big red warning there.
For Hibernate, you probably can build something on the interceptors and events that keep track of all modifications and log them to a special audit table.
Have you looked into using a MappedSuperclass for C(R)UD operation logging?
#MappedSuperclass
public class BaseEntity {
#Basic
#Temporal(TemporalType.TIMESTAMP)
public Date getLastUpdate() { ... }
public String getLastUpdater() { ... }
...
}
#Entity class Order extends BaseEntity {
#Id public Integer getId() { ... }
...
}
In case you go for logging solution and looking for doing it yourself, try searching for JDBCAppender, it's not perfect but should work.
In case you want off the shelf product for centralized logging - consider trying logFaces - it can write directly into your own database (Disclosure: I am the author of this product.)