I have a table Users and a table Items
In the Items table, I have fields such as
ModifiedBy
CreatedBy
AssignedTo
which all have a userId integer. The database is set up to have these as foreign keys back to the Users table.
When using LINQToSQL, the relationships which are automatically built from the dbml end up giving me names like User, User1 and User2
e.g. myItem.User1.Name or myItem.User2.Name
Obviously this isn't very readable and I'd like it be along the lines of
myItem.CreatedByUser.Name or myItem.ModifiedByUser.Name etc
I could change the names of the relationships but that means I have to redo that every time I change the db schema and refresh the dbml.
Is there any way round this?
The simple answer: No.
Someone has suggested the idea of creating partial Association classes where the property names get defined, but that won't work either: Renaming LINQ 2 SQL Entity Properties Through Partial Classes.
Your choice is to either spend a little time learning more about LINQ-to-SQL "behind-the-scenes" so that you can manually make the necessary modifications or to just change the property names through the Properties window. Personally, I just delete/redrag/rename, because not setting a property correctly is a pain to debug because the exceptions that get thrown give you little to no clue as to what caused it. I even went so far as to create a unit test library that takes each MetaTable object in the model and verifies the field count, the ServerDataType contents of each field, the association count, the names of each association, and the names of each end of the association. Every few changes, I run the unit tests to make sure that the model is intact.
Firstly, no... the names are created based on the second table in the relationship.
But what you should know is that you don't have to "refresh" (meaning, delete the table in the DBML then re-drag-and-drop it).
For the project I'm working on, we have over 200 tables... about 50 of which we have manually tweaked after dragging them from the database. We never delete and re-drag tables as there have been so many changes post-auto-generation.
I just add a small partial class to extend the object with suitably named properties, example below:
namespace Database.TableModels {
partial class WTSR_Induction {
public EmailTemplate ConfirmationEmailTemplate {
get { return EmailTemplate1; }
}
public EmailTemplate InviteEmailTemplate {
get { return EmailTemplate; }
}
}
}
In this example, the WTSR_Inductions table has two links to the EmailTemplates table, hence the EmailTemplate and EmailTemplate1 properties.
A bit late but you can do this by selecting the relationship on the linq model and go to properties and update the parent property name.
You could use linq to sql without the dbml it may be extra work upfront but from the perspective of a change to a table column name it may be easier than changes to the dbml as you have described.
I suggest creating extension methods mapping the names you want to the names you get from the autogenerated code. That way after each auto-generation you don't have to change the autogenerated code, but only your own extension methods. That, plus the unit tests to do sanity checks as suggested elsewhere on this page should work fine.
I have just faced this problem myself and I'm off to try to implement my own suggestion.
EDIT: This seems relevant:
SQLMetal Multiple Foreign Keys Pointing to One Table Issue
Related
I have two entities which are Student and Class entities.
Student and Class are many to one relationship. So student contains class attribute.
Now i want to save or create a student associate with existing class(means i know primary key ID already).
Solution 1:
Student student = new Student();
Class class = session.load(classId);
student.setClass(class);
session.save(student);
Solution 2:
Student student = new Student();
Class class = new Class();
class.setClassId(classId);
student.setClass(class);
session.save(student);
My question here is in solution 1 it will issue two SQL, one is to get Class another is to insert student. But in solution 2 only need to have one SQL. If I have more class attribute,
i will load and issue more select sql before insert. It seems not that efficient. Is there any side-effect in solution 2?
which way to do save/insert is better? By the way, i do not set up cascade.
Thank you
Yee Chen
Solution 1 won't issue an SQL query to load Class. Unlike get(), load() returns a proxy object with the specified identifier and doesn't perform a database query immediately. Thus, load() method is a natural choice for this scenario (when you actually need to load an object, use get()).
Possible side effect of solution 2 depends on cascading configuration of relationship and so on. Even if it works fine in your current case, it makes your code more fragile, since seemingly unrelated changes in the code may break it.
So, I recommend you to use Solution 1 and don't worry about performance.
Is there any side-effect in solution 2?
First of all, you haven't associated your student with any class there.
Secondly, where do you get that class id from in the general case? At some earlier point in time, you had to either fetch an existing class instance from the DB, or create a new instance and persist it, so that you get its id. Of course, reusing an entity you already have is fine, but juggling with ids like you do above is IMHO not.
Thirdly, it is not a good idea to prematurely optimize your app. Get it to work properly first, then measure performance, and optimize only if and where needed.
Let's say I have two tables in SQL that I want to have an EDMX model generated from (for now, going with automagical generation for everything) using POCO T4 templates. Let's say our two tables are Person (ID, FName, LName) and Comment (ID, PersonID, CommentText, CommentDate) with a one-to-many relation between the two (i.e. you can make many comments about one person).
Getting my POCO entities generated from this is trivial and works beautifully. What I don't know how to do now, though, is to add a custom navigation property on my Person entity that represents the most recent comment for that person (eventually something even more complex than this will ultimately be needed). For now, it's okay that it's read-only but it would be nice to know how to handle an writable property too.
What is the proper way to do this? One thing to consider is that I'm serializing these entities so I will need them to be eager-loaded and persisted in a way that I can push them out to my UI with WCF in the middle (i.e. a custom hand-written property in an extension class that relies on lazy loading is not an option).
I've gotten pretty good at using EF4 for standard stuff, but now that I'm getting into this custom stuff, I'm not entirely sure how to do this in a best practice way.
Adding a property is easy. Put it in a partial class, named the same as the entity. But if your property looks like:
get
{
return this.Comments.OrderByDescending(c => c.CommentDate).FirstOrDefault();
}
...then it will work but you can't use it in an L2E query.
If you need L2E support, you can use this technique.
I've been battling this for a while. I'm trying to implement a many to one association. I have a bunch of rows in a table, called readings. These accumulate over time, and every now and then I want to export them. When I export them I want to create a new object called ExportEvent, to track which rows were exported, so they can be re-exported if need be. Therefore Reading has a nullable foreign key relationship with ExportEvent, as I create the readings before I export them.
What I'm finding is that when I then do the export, whether I first create the ExportEvent (evt) and add the readings using
evt.Readings.AddRange(),
or if I use
foreach(reading)
reading.ExportEvent = evt
When I call SubmitChanges I am always getting a new bunch of readings created with the association to evt, and the original records aren't updated.
I pared this back to its simplest though, just to see if I could create the two objects with no association, and I even found when I just retrieved all the readings and updated an int value on them, submitchanges still inserted a bunch of new records. What's going on?
Hmmm. Interesting - just clicked this link in my bookmarks, and found that the question has been resurrected, so will provide the (embarrassing) solution. All of my entities have audit data properties on them - CreatedDate and UpdatedDate. Therefore I've implemented the partial methods for the insert and update of each entity in the datacontext. I had copied and pasted (how often is this the cause of some downfall) some of these insert and update methods for the newly created entities. As a result I'd also copied an error, where the Update[blah] methods were calling ExecuteDynamicInsert, instead of ExecuteDynamicUpdate.
Suffice to say I was very frustrated when for 3 hours I'd been trying frantically to solve this problem, only to find it was due to a (silly) copy/paste error - and only to find the error about 3 mins after I'd posted this question!
Hope this helps someone.
I suspect it is because you are calling AddRange(). This will add the new objects to the data context. Instead, you should try just re attaching the existing objects by called Attach() on your data context.
(Or if you never detached them and still have your original data context, you don't need to do anything, just make the changes to the objects and call SubmitChanges())
I have a question related to this one. I don't want to do a calculation (aggregation), but I need to get display values from an association. In my C# code, I can directly reference the value, because the foreign key constraint made Linq generate all the necessary wiring.
When I specify the IQueryable as the Gridview datasource property, and reference something that is not a column of the primary entity in the result set, I get an error that the column does not exist.
As a newbie to Linq, I am guessing the assignment implicitely converts the IQueryable to a list, and the associations are lost.
My question is, what is a good way to do this?
I assume that I can work around this by writing a parallel query returning an anonymous type that contains all the columns that I need for the gridview. It seems that by doing that I would hold data in memory redundantly that I already have. Can I query the in-memory data structures on the fly when assigning the data source? Or is there a more direct solution?
The gridview is supposed to display the physician's medical group associations, and the name of the association is in a lookup table.
IQueryable<Physician> ph =
from phys in db.Physicians
//from name in phys.PhysicianNames.DefaultIfEmpty()
//from lic in phys.PhysicianLicenseNums.DefaultIfEmpty()
//from addr in phys.PhysicianAddresses.DefaultIfEmpty()
//from npi in phys.PhysicianNPIs.DefaultIfEmpty()
//from assoc in phys.PhysicianMedGroups.DefaultIfEmpty()
where phys.BQID == bqid
select phys;
(source: heeroz.com)
So, based on Denis' answer, I removed all the unneeded stuff from my query. I figured that I may not be asking the right question to begin with.
Anyways, the page shows a physician's data. I want to display all medical group affiliations in a grid (and let the user insert, edit, and update affiliations). I now realize that I don't need to explicitly join in these other tables - Linq does that for me. I can access the license number, which is in a separate table, by referencing it through the chain of child associations.
I cannot reference the medical group name in the gridview, which brings me back to my question:
AffiliationGrid.DataSource = ph.First().PhysicianMedGroups;
This does not work, because med_group_print_name is not accessible for the GridView:
A field or property with the name 'med_group_print_name' was not found on the
selected data source.
Again, bear with me, if it is all too obvious that I don't understand Linq ... because I don't.
Your query seems strange. You should try to simply display
ph = from phys in db.Physicians
where phys.BQID == bqid
select phys;
in your grid. That should work.
Also, why the calls to Load()? If the DataContext is not disposed when the grid is binding, you should not need it.
If you still have issues, can you please post the error message you get, that would help...
Part 2
The problem is that you have the name is effectively not in the PhysMedGroup. You need to navigate one level down to the MedGroupLookup to access the name, since it is a property of that class.
Depending on the technology you are using (it seems to be either WinForms or Web Forms), you will need to configure your data-binding to access MedGroupLookup.med_group_print_name.
I am trying to inherit from my generated datacontext in LinqToSQL - something like this
public class myContext : dbDataContext {
public System.Data.Linq.Table<User>() Users {
return (from x in base.Users() where x.DeletedOn.HasValue == false select x);
}
}
But my Linq statement returns IQueryable which cannot cast to Table - does anyone know a way to limit the contents of a Linq.Table - I am trying to be certain that anywhere my Users table is accessed, it doesn't return those marked deleted. Perhaps I am going about this all wrong - any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Hal
Another approach would to be use views..
CREATE VIEW ActiveUsers as SELECT * FROM Users WHERE IsDeleted = 0
As far as linq to sql is concerned, that is just the same as a table. For any table that you needed the DeletedOn filtering, just create a view that uses the filter and use that in place of the table in your data context.
You could use discriminator column inheritance on the table, ie. a DeletedUsers table and ActiveUsers table where the discriminator column says which goes to which. Then in your code, just reference the Users.OfType ActiveUsers, which will never include anything deleted.
As a side note, how the heck do you do this with markdown?
Users.OfType<ActiveUsers>
I can get it in code, but not inline
Encapsulate your DataContext so that developers don't use Table in their queries. I have an 'All' property on my repositories that does a similar filtering to what you need. So then queries are like:
from item in All
where ...
select item
and all might be:
public IQueryable<T> All
{
get { return MyDataContext.GetTable<T>.Where(entity => !entity.DeletedOn.HasValue); }
}
You can use a stored procedure that returns all the mapped columns in the table for all the records that are not marked deleted, then map the LINQ to SQL class to the stored procedure's results. I think you just drag-drop the stored proc in Server Explorer on to the class in the LINQ to SQL designer.
What I did in this circumstance is I created a repository class that passes back IQueryable but basically is just
from t in _db.Table
select t;
this is usually referenced by tableRepository.GetAllXXX(); but you could have a tableRepository.GetAllNonDeletedXXX(); that puts in that preliminary where clause to take out the deleted rows. This would allow you to get back the deleted ones, the undeleted ones and all rows using different methods.
Perhaps my comment to Keven sheffield's response may shed some light on what I am trying to accomplish:
I have a similar repository for most
of my data access, but I am trying to
be able to traverse my relationships
and maintain the DeletedOn logic,
without actually calling any
additional methods. The objects are
interrogated (spelling fixed) by a StringTemplate
processor which can't call methods
(just props/fields).
I will ultimately need this DeletedOn filtering for all of the tables in my application. The inherited class solution from Scott Nichols should work (although I will need to derive a class and relationships for around 30 tables - ouch), although I need to figure out how to check for a null value in my Derived Class Discriminator Value property.
I may just end up extended all my classes specifically for the StringTemplate processing, explicitly adding properties for the relationships I need, I would just love to be able to throw StringTemplate a [user] and have it walk through everything.
There are a couple of views we use in associations and they still appear just like any other relationship. We did need to add the associations manually. The only thing I can think to suggest is to take a look at the properties and decorated attributes generated for those classes and associations.
Add a couple tables that have the same relationship and compare those to the view that isn't showing up.
Also, sometimes the refresh on the server explorer connection doesn't seem to work correctly and the entities aren't created correctly initially, unless we remove them from the designer, close the project, then reopen the project and add them again from the server explorer. This is assuming you are using Visual Studio 2008 with the linq to sql .dbml designer.
I found the problem that I had with the relationships/associations not showing in the views. It seems that you have to go through each class in the dbml and set a primary key for views as it is unable to extract that information from the schema. I am in the process of setting the primary keys now and am planning to go the view route to isolate only non-deleted items.
Thanks and I will update more later.