I find an answer
Entity Framework Core: many-to-many relationship with same entity and try like this.
Entitys:
public class User
{
public int UserId { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Friend> Friends { get; set; }
}
public class Friend
{
public int MainUserId { get; set; }
public User ManUser { get; set; }
public int FriendUserId { get; set; }
public User FriendUser { get; set; }
}
The fluent API:
modelBuilder.Entity<Friend>()
.HasKey(f => new { f.MainUserId, f.FriendUserId });
modelBuilder.Entity<Friend>()
.HasOne(f => f.ManUser)
.WithMany(mu => mu.Friends)
.HasForeignKey(f => f.MainUserId);
modelBuilder.Entity<Friend>()
.HasOne(f => f.FriendUser)
.WithMany(mu => mu.Friends)
.HasForeignKey(f => f.FriendUserId);
Cannot create a relationship between 'User.Friends' and 'Friend.FriendUser', because there already is a relationship between 'User.Friends' and 'Friend.ManUser'. Navigation properties can only participate in a single relationship.
What should I do? Or I should create an Entity FriendEntity:User?
Many-to-many relationships require a collection navigation property on both sides. They will be discovered by convention like other types of relationships. The way this relationship is implemented in the database is by a join table that contains foreign keys to both Post and Tag .
When you need to establish a many-to-many relationship between two or more tables, the simplest way is to use a Junction Table. A Junction table in a database, also referred to as a Bridge table or Associative Table, bridges the tables together by referencing the primary keys of each data table.
Entity Framework (EF) Core, Microsoft's object-to-database mapper library for . NET Framework, brings performance improvements for data updates in version 7, Microsoft claims. The performance of SaveChanges method in EF7 is up to 74% faster than in EF6, in some scenarios.
The problem is that you can't have one collection to support both one-to-many associations. Friend
has two foreign keys that both need an inverse end in the entity they refer to. So add another collection as inverse end of MainUser
:
public class User
{
public int UserId { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Friend> MainUserFriends { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Friend> Friends { get; set; }
}
And the mapping:
modelBuilder.Entity<Friend>()
.HasKey(f => new { f.MainUserId, f.FriendUserId });
modelBuilder.Entity<Friend>()
.HasOne(f => f.MainUser)
.WithMany(mu => mu.MainUserFriends)
.HasForeignKey(f => f.MainUserId).OnDelete(DeleteBehavior.Restrict);
modelBuilder.Entity<Friend>()
.HasOne(f => f.FriendUser)
.WithMany(mu => mu.Friends)
.HasForeignKey(f => f.FriendUserId);
One (or both) of the relationships should be without cascading delete to prevent multiple cascade paths.
It's not mandatory the second collection. You only need to left de .WithMany() empty like this:
modelBuilder.Entity<Friend>()
.HasOne(f => f.MainUser)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(f => f.MainUserId);
modelBuilder.Entity<Friend>()
.HasOne(f => f.FriendUser)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(f => f.FriendUserId);
look at this : https://github.com/aspnet/EntityFramework/issues/6052
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With