This should be a simple question for the well versed EF user.
I have the following schema (in my head) of how the relationships between the tables should look.
[FooBar] [Foo] [Bar]
FooId PK,FK Id PK Id PK
BarId PK,FK BarId FK Name
IsRead Name Description
Description
Though, when I try to generate the schema using EF code-first it fails to interpret the relationships between the entities as I've interpreted them (adds foreign key FooId
to the [bar]
table) and fails to fully create the [FooBar]
bridge table.
If someone could guide me on how to achieve the above schema using EF4 code-first I'd appreciate it. Whether the solution involves attributes on my POCO models, fluent configurations or a hybrid of both doesn't matter much - as long as the desired database schema is created.
POCO Models:
public class Foo
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public int BarId { get; set; }
public Bar Bar { get; set; } /* bar entity */
public virtual ICollection<Bar> BridgedBars { get; set; }
public Foo()
{
Bars = new List<Bar>();
}
}
public class Bar
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Foo> Foos { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Foo> BridgedFoos { get; set; }
public Bar()
{
Foos = new List<Foo>();
BridgedFoos = new List<Foo>();
}
}
public class FooBar
{
public int FooId { get; set; }
public int BarId { get; set; }
public virtual Foo Foo { get; set; }
public virtual Bar Bar { get; set; }
public bool IsRead { get; set; }
}
Your model will indeed create a foreign key FooId
in the Bar
which belongs to the relationship defined by Foo.BrideBars
. EF doesn't relate this navigation property to one of the ICollection<Foo>
properties in Bar
because there are two of them and EF cannot determine uniquely which is the correct pair. As a result it creates a relationship for Foo.BrideBars
without a navigation property on the other end. So to speak, there is an invisible Bar.Foo
property which causes the foreign key.
The database schema you want to map to a model does not really represent a many-to-many relationship but instead two one-to-many relationships with the intermediate "bridge" entity FooBar
. You must use this class in the navigation properties to define the correct relationships. It would look like this:
public class Foo
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public int BarId { get; set; }
public Bar Bar { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<FooBar> FooBars { get; set; }
}
public class Bar
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Foo> Foos { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<FooBar> FooBars { get; set; }
}
public class FooBar
{
[Key, Column(Order = 0)]
public int FooId { get; set; }
[Key, Column(Order = 1)]
public int BarId { get; set; }
public virtual Foo Foo { get; set; }
public virtual Bar Bar { get; set; }
public bool IsRead { get; set; }
}
The correct relationships will be detected by naming conventions in this model. Only for the FooBar
entity it is necessary to define a key explicitly because the property names do not meet the conventions (no Id
and no FooBarId
property). In this model it makes sense to use a composite key in FooBar
.
I guess, your real classes and properties don't have the name Foo
and Bar
. If your real names do not follow the conventions you possibly have to specify the relationships with annotations - or with Fluent API:
modelBuilder.Entity<Foo>()
.HasRequired(f => f.Bar)
.WithMany(b => b.Foos)
.HasForeignKey(f => f.BarId);
modelBuilder.Entity<FooBar>()
.HasKey(fb => new { fb.FooId, fb.BarId }); // replaces the [Key] annotations
modelBuilder.Entity<FooBar>()
.HasRequired(fb => fb.Foo)
.WithMany(f => f.FooBars)
.HasForeignKey(fb => fb.FooId);
modelBuilder.Entity<FooBar>()
.HasRequired(fb => fb.Bar)
.WithMany(b => b.FooBars)
.HasForeignKey(fb => fb.BarId);
In your database schema the FooBar
table will have a composite primary key:
[FooBar] [Foo] [Bar]
FooId PK,FK Id PK Id PK
BarId PK,FK BarId FK Name
IsRead Name Description
Description
But having a PK in FooBar
is necessary because every entity in an EF model must have a key property defined - either single or composite - which maps to a primary key in the database table.
In this question - Create code first, many to many, with additional fields in association table - are more details how to work with such a type of relationship. (Sometimes people also call it "many-to-many relationship with payload" (the IsRead
property is the "payload" in your example model), but in fact it's not many-to-many.)
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